This order grants the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new parties and factual allegations learned during discovery. The plaintiff seeks to add three individuals ("Doe defendants") identified during depositions as being involved in removing property from the estate. The plaintiff also seeks to add an attorney and her law firm who received estate property from one of the defendants. The only opposition comes from the attorney and law firm, but the court finds that allowing the amendments would not be prejudicial or futile. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesJRachelle
This document is a motion filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith) in a civil action. It requests leave from the court to amend and supplement the original complaint, join additional defendants, and amend the case caption. The motion states that discovery has revealed new information supporting the original claims and identifying previously unknown defendants. It also describes events that have occurred since the original complaint that could be added. The executor seeks to add claims involving additional conversions of estate property and to join new parties involved in the unauthorized transfers.
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add DefendantsJRachelle
This document is a brief in support of a motion for leave to amend and supplement a complaint and join additional defendants. It summarizes that the plaintiff has discovered new information through discovery that warrants adding new claims, defendants, and factual details to the original complaint. Specifically, it seeks to add Gaither Thompson, Melanie Thompson, and Gina Shelley as defendants as accomplices in removing property from the estate, and to add Susan Brown and her law firm for unlawfully distributing estate property to third parties. The brief argues the amendment is timely and will not prejudice the defendants.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss claims against defendants Susan Brown and The Law Offices of Susan Brown. It argues that (1) claims based on California procedural law cannot be brought in South Carolina court, (2) the relevant California statute only applies to acts occurring in California, and (3) the principle of res judicata bars re-litigating issues already decided in a prior motion for sanctions. The memorandum provides background on the representation of defendant Ben Thompson by Susan Brown and the limited allegations against Brown in the amended complaint.
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by Susan M. Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown in opposition to Howard K. Stern's motion to amend his complaint to join them as additional defendants. The memorandum argues that the motion to amend should be denied on the grounds of prejudice and futility. It asserts that Brown would be prejudiced by the late addition as a defendant since discovery is largely complete. It also argues that the attempts to apply California law are futile since South Carolina law applies, and that the complaint fails to properly plead causes of action under South Carolina law against Brown.
This document is a motion filed by attorney R. Scott Joye requesting that the court schedule a hearing for his previously filed motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant G. Ben Thompson. The motion was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in the case of Howard K. Stern v. Stancil Shelley et al. on December 8, 2009 in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.
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.
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10JRachelle
This document is the Executor's response in opposition to a motion to dismiss filed by Susan M. Brown and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown. The Executor argues that the motion to dismiss should be denied for three reasons: 1) Brown is raising the same arguments that the court already rejected in granting leave to amend the complaint, 2) the Executor has properly stated claims for both statutory and common law misappropriation of publicity rights, and 3) even if the motion to dismiss is granted, there are six other valid causes of action against Brown that would remain in the case.
Motion for Summary Judgment by Kanawha Stone containing the deposition and re...Putnam Reporter
Motion For Summary Judgment with exhibit containing the depositions and resumes of the plaintiffs in the case of :
DOLORES HALBURN and MARK HALBURN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF HURRICANE, WEST VIRGINIA,
a municipal corporation, BEN NEWHOUSE,
individually and in his capacity as City Manager
for the City of Hurricane, CLEVELAND
CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba Cleveland
Construction, Inc. Of Nevada, and KANAWHA
STONE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.
Putnam County WV Civil Action No. 07-C-298
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesJRachelle
This document is a motion filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith) in a civil action. It requests leave from the court to amend and supplement the original complaint, join additional defendants, and amend the case caption. The motion states that discovery has revealed new information supporting the original claims and identifying previously unknown defendants. It also describes events that have occurred since the original complaint that could be added. The executor seeks to add claims involving additional conversions of estate property and to join new parties involved in the unauthorized transfers.
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add DefendantsJRachelle
This document is a brief in support of a motion for leave to amend and supplement a complaint and join additional defendants. It summarizes that the plaintiff has discovered new information through discovery that warrants adding new claims, defendants, and factual details to the original complaint. Specifically, it seeks to add Gaither Thompson, Melanie Thompson, and Gina Shelley as defendants as accomplices in removing property from the estate, and to add Susan Brown and her law firm for unlawfully distributing estate property to third parties. The brief argues the amendment is timely and will not prejudice the defendants.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss claims against defendants Susan Brown and The Law Offices of Susan Brown. It argues that (1) claims based on California procedural law cannot be brought in South Carolina court, (2) the relevant California statute only applies to acts occurring in California, and (3) the principle of res judicata bars re-litigating issues already decided in a prior motion for sanctions. The memorandum provides background on the representation of defendant Ben Thompson by Susan Brown and the limited allegations against Brown in the amended complaint.
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by Susan M. Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown in opposition to Howard K. Stern's motion to amend his complaint to join them as additional defendants. The memorandum argues that the motion to amend should be denied on the grounds of prejudice and futility. It asserts that Brown would be prejudiced by the late addition as a defendant since discovery is largely complete. It also argues that the attempts to apply California law are futile since South Carolina law applies, and that the complaint fails to properly plead causes of action under South Carolina law against Brown.
This document is a motion filed by attorney R. Scott Joye requesting that the court schedule a hearing for his previously filed motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant G. Ben Thompson. The motion was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in the case of Howard K. Stern v. Stancil Shelley et al. on December 8, 2009 in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.
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.
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10JRachelle
This document is the Executor's response in opposition to a motion to dismiss filed by Susan M. Brown and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown. The Executor argues that the motion to dismiss should be denied for three reasons: 1) Brown is raising the same arguments that the court already rejected in granting leave to amend the complaint, 2) the Executor has properly stated claims for both statutory and common law misappropriation of publicity rights, and 3) even if the motion to dismiss is granted, there are six other valid causes of action against Brown that would remain in the case.
Motion for Summary Judgment by Kanawha Stone containing the deposition and re...Putnam Reporter
Motion For Summary Judgment with exhibit containing the depositions and resumes of the plaintiffs in the case of :
DOLORES HALBURN and MARK HALBURN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF HURRICANE, WEST VIRGINIA,
a municipal corporation, BEN NEWHOUSE,
individually and in his capacity as City Manager
for the City of Hurricane, CLEVELAND
CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba Cleveland
Construction, Inc. Of Nevada, and KANAWHA
STONE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.
Putnam County WV Civil Action No. 07-C-298
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsJRachelle
This document provides the background and statement of facts regarding a motion for contempt and sanctions against G. Ben Thompson and Susan M. Brown. It details that Brown consented to a preliminary injunction regarding estate property but failed to disclose that she had already provided estate property hard drives to a third party. It was later discovered that Brown still possessed additional estate property files and documents in violation of the court order. The motion seeks to hold Brown and Thompson in contempt of court and impose sanctions for Brown's failure to fully comply with the court's order regarding returning all estate property.
The Landmark Federal Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This is the federal court order protecting the First Amendment Rights Of Our U.S. Constitution Against Dumb and Dirty Police Officers, Malicious Prosecutors and Corrupt Judges. The 1972 Florida Statute Was Struck Down as Unconstitutional on its face and as illegally applied by dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore with their falsely written police reports.
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Rich Bergeron
1. Richard Bergeron III filed a motion to schedule his trial as soon as possible in his criminal case in Belknap County Superior Court, citing violations of his right to a speedy trial.
2. Bergeron was arrested in February 2019 and remains on bail conditions, but over two years later there is still no trial date set due to scheduling delays and a backlogged court docket.
3. Bergeron argues that further delays in scheduling his trial would continue to violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial and requests that his case be scheduled for trial immediately or dismissed.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitTerry81
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal and Criminal DAVID Searches were conducted to the Brayshaws illegally for exposing the dumb and dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore at The Tallahassee Police Department. Various Civil and Constitutional Rights Violations have been exposed for illegal actions of Tallahassee Police Officers especially for using their mafia tactics of free speech and free press suppression of illegal censorships conducted.
This document is a motion filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of Anna Nicole Smith's estate. It seeks to hold the defendant G. Ben Thompson and his attorney Susan Brown in contempt of court for violating a court order. The order required Brown to turn over duplicates of estate property within 10 days, but she failed to do so for over 9 months. The motion requests sanctions against Thompson and Brown, including striking defenses, awarding legal fees, and ordering the immediate turnover of all estate property.
Darren Chaker http://darrenchaker,us/ notes, “[T]he First Amendment does not „belong‟ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.” First Nat. Bank. of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring). This federal court ruling found a Florida law preventing disclosure of police home address information to be unconstitutional for several articulated reasons based on the First Amendment. The court found the right to publish police home addresses did not fall within any category of speech the First Amendment allowed to exempt from protection.
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownJRachelle
This document provides background information on a legal dispute over property belonging to the estate of Anna Nicole Smith. It summarizes that Smith's executor is seeking documents and testimony from Susan Brown, who represented individuals accused of removing property from Smith's home after her death. Brown moved to quash the subpoena, while the executor seeks to compel compliance. The court will rule on these motions.
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial GroundsRich Bergeron
Judge James D. O'Neill III denied my motion to dismiss. He had to overlook a great deal of facts and precedent law to come to the conclusion he did. I lay it all out for him in this motion to reconsider. Can he admit he was wrong, or will he keep being an ignorant and unethical disgrace to the bench? See WWW.NHDRUGTASKFORCE.COM to find out.
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)Rich Bergeron
Here I take the prosecutor from Grafton County to task for all her mistakes and lack of proper legal analysis. Judge O'Neill will still rule in her favor, no matter how lax in her duties she is. I do go overboard and keep insisting the state had no motion pending. There was actually a motion to amend before the court, so I screwed up myself there, but not nearly as badly as Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater did.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...Rich Bergeron
This is a detailed complaint I filed recently regarding an attempt by the local prosecutor's office to eviscerate my First Amendment rights and deny me my rights to due process throughout the case.
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...Rich Bergeron
My motion for sanctions against a pair of attorneys from Belknap County and another two from Grafton County. Four attorneys handling my case all lied and misrepresented the law. This motion demonstrates what is fundamentally wrong about your local justice system in New Hampshire.
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)VogelDenise
This document is the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' motion to stay proceedings and for rule 11 sanctions and default judgment. The plaintiff argues that the judge assigned to the case, Judge Tom S. Lee, has a conflict of interest that requires his recusal from the case. The plaintiff cites case law establishing that a judge must recuse himself if there are facts that cast doubt on his impartiality. The plaintiff claims the integrity of the court has been compromised by Judge Lee's actions, which project an appearance that the case can be won through criminal means. The plaintiff seeks to have the defendants' motion to stay proceedings stricken and requests rule 11 sanctions against the defendants as well as a default judgment.
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Rich Bergeron
The ACLU of New Hampshire opposes the State's motion for a court order prohibiting pre-trial publicity in the case of State v. Richard E. Bergeron, III. The ACLU argues that: 1) the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to pro se criminal defendants like Bergeron and cannot be the basis for a gag order; 2) even if the rules did apply, the proposed gag order exceeds the scope of the relevant rule by restricting speech that occurs far before trial and by ignoring exceptions; and 3) the proposed gag order would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Bergeron's freedom of expression under the US and NH Constitutions.
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Rich Bergeron
Pay particular attention to how this "objection" is worded. Judge O'Neill ends up not only filing the fastest order in my favor in the history of the case, but he also writes it as if he's only addressing it to the prosecution. My initial motion asked for the judge to either schedule a prompt trial date or dismiss the case. It was not a motion to dismiss, but the mere mention of a suggested dismissal made Judge O'Neill act fast, and the language of the request criticizing him so vociferously obviously made him furious.
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmJRachelle
This document is a reply in support of a motion to amend a complaint to add Susan M. Brown as a defendant. It argues that Brown is not immune from liability for her conduct related to estate property, which included distributing property without authorization and engaging in criminal acts. It also argues that any delay in adding Brown as a defendant was due to her own attempts to delay, including refusing a deposition without a court order. The reply seeks to add Brown as a defendant for claims related to the conduct already at issue in the case.
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptJRachelle
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions. The court found Susan Brown, the attorney, in contempt for violating a consent order requiring her to turn over all copies of estate property. However, the court did not find Ben Thompson, Brown's former client, in contempt as there was no clear evidence he violated the order. As a sanction, the court ordered Brown to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs for bringing the contempt motion, but no other punitive sanctions. The court also ordered Brown and Thompson to turn over any remaining estate property.
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbJRachelle
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion for contempt and sanctions against Susan M. Brown. It argues that Brown is in contempt of a court order requiring her to return any estate property in her possession. The brief asserts that Brown has provided shifting explanations to avoid contempt and misrepresents facts, including acknowledging in her deposition that she knew the order's requirements and possessed estate property. The brief contends Brown's conduct satisfies the elements for a finding of civil contempt.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsJRachelle
This document provides the background and statement of facts regarding a motion for contempt and sanctions against G. Ben Thompson and Susan M. Brown. It details that Brown consented to a preliminary injunction regarding estate property but failed to disclose that she had already provided estate property hard drives to a third party. It was later discovered that Brown still possessed additional estate property files and documents in violation of the court order. The motion seeks to hold Brown and Thompson in contempt of court and impose sanctions for Brown's failure to fully comply with the court's order regarding returning all estate property.
The Landmark Federal Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This is the federal court order protecting the First Amendment Rights Of Our U.S. Constitution Against Dumb and Dirty Police Officers, Malicious Prosecutors and Corrupt Judges. The 1972 Florida Statute Was Struck Down as Unconstitutional on its face and as illegally applied by dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore with their falsely written police reports.
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Rich Bergeron
1. Richard Bergeron III filed a motion to schedule his trial as soon as possible in his criminal case in Belknap County Superior Court, citing violations of his right to a speedy trial.
2. Bergeron was arrested in February 2019 and remains on bail conditions, but over two years later there is still no trial date set due to scheduling delays and a backlogged court docket.
3. Bergeron argues that further delays in scheduling his trial would continue to violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial and requests that his case be scheduled for trial immediately or dismissed.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitTerry81
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal and Criminal DAVID Searches were conducted to the Brayshaws illegally for exposing the dumb and dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore at The Tallahassee Police Department. Various Civil and Constitutional Rights Violations have been exposed for illegal actions of Tallahassee Police Officers especially for using their mafia tactics of free speech and free press suppression of illegal censorships conducted.
This document is a motion filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of Anna Nicole Smith's estate. It seeks to hold the defendant G. Ben Thompson and his attorney Susan Brown in contempt of court for violating a court order. The order required Brown to turn over duplicates of estate property within 10 days, but she failed to do so for over 9 months. The motion requests sanctions against Thompson and Brown, including striking defenses, awarding legal fees, and ordering the immediate turnover of all estate property.
Darren Chaker http://darrenchaker,us/ notes, “[T]he First Amendment does not „belong‟ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.” First Nat. Bank. of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring). This federal court ruling found a Florida law preventing disclosure of police home address information to be unconstitutional for several articulated reasons based on the First Amendment. The court found the right to publish police home addresses did not fall within any category of speech the First Amendment allowed to exempt from protection.
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownJRachelle
This document provides background information on a legal dispute over property belonging to the estate of Anna Nicole Smith. It summarizes that Smith's executor is seeking documents and testimony from Susan Brown, who represented individuals accused of removing property from Smith's home after her death. Brown moved to quash the subpoena, while the executor seeks to compel compliance. The court will rule on these motions.
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial GroundsRich Bergeron
Judge James D. O'Neill III denied my motion to dismiss. He had to overlook a great deal of facts and precedent law to come to the conclusion he did. I lay it all out for him in this motion to reconsider. Can he admit he was wrong, or will he keep being an ignorant and unethical disgrace to the bench? See WWW.NHDRUGTASKFORCE.COM to find out.
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)Rich Bergeron
Here I take the prosecutor from Grafton County to task for all her mistakes and lack of proper legal analysis. Judge O'Neill will still rule in her favor, no matter how lax in her duties she is. I do go overboard and keep insisting the state had no motion pending. There was actually a motion to amend before the court, so I screwed up myself there, but not nearly as badly as Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater did.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...Rich Bergeron
This is a detailed complaint I filed recently regarding an attempt by the local prosecutor's office to eviscerate my First Amendment rights and deny me my rights to due process throughout the case.
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...Rich Bergeron
My motion for sanctions against a pair of attorneys from Belknap County and another two from Grafton County. Four attorneys handling my case all lied and misrepresented the law. This motion demonstrates what is fundamentally wrong about your local justice system in New Hampshire.
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)VogelDenise
This document is the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' motion to stay proceedings and for rule 11 sanctions and default judgment. The plaintiff argues that the judge assigned to the case, Judge Tom S. Lee, has a conflict of interest that requires his recusal from the case. The plaintiff cites case law establishing that a judge must recuse himself if there are facts that cast doubt on his impartiality. The plaintiff claims the integrity of the court has been compromised by Judge Lee's actions, which project an appearance that the case can be won through criminal means. The plaintiff seeks to have the defendants' motion to stay proceedings stricken and requests rule 11 sanctions against the defendants as well as a default judgment.
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Rich Bergeron
The ACLU of New Hampshire opposes the State's motion for a court order prohibiting pre-trial publicity in the case of State v. Richard E. Bergeron, III. The ACLU argues that: 1) the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to pro se criminal defendants like Bergeron and cannot be the basis for a gag order; 2) even if the rules did apply, the proposed gag order exceeds the scope of the relevant rule by restricting speech that occurs far before trial and by ignoring exceptions; and 3) the proposed gag order would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Bergeron's freedom of expression under the US and NH Constitutions.
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Rich Bergeron
Pay particular attention to how this "objection" is worded. Judge O'Neill ends up not only filing the fastest order in my favor in the history of the case, but he also writes it as if he's only addressing it to the prosecution. My initial motion asked for the judge to either schedule a prompt trial date or dismiss the case. It was not a motion to dismiss, but the mere mention of a suggested dismissal made Judge O'Neill act fast, and the language of the request criticizing him so vociferously obviously made him furious.
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmJRachelle
This document is a reply in support of a motion to amend a complaint to add Susan M. Brown as a defendant. It argues that Brown is not immune from liability for her conduct related to estate property, which included distributing property without authorization and engaging in criminal acts. It also argues that any delay in adding Brown as a defendant was due to her own attempts to delay, including refusing a deposition without a court order. The reply seeks to add Brown as a defendant for claims related to the conduct already at issue in the case.
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptJRachelle
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions. The court found Susan Brown, the attorney, in contempt for violating a consent order requiring her to turn over all copies of estate property. However, the court did not find Ben Thompson, Brown's former client, in contempt as there was no clear evidence he violated the order. As a sanction, the court ordered Brown to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs for bringing the contempt motion, but no other punitive sanctions. The court also ordered Brown and Thompson to turn over any remaining estate property.
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbJRachelle
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion for contempt and sanctions against Susan M. Brown. It argues that Brown is in contempt of a court order requiring her to return any estate property in her possession. The brief asserts that Brown has provided shifting explanations to avoid contempt and misrepresents facts, including acknowledging in her deposition that she knew the order's requirements and possessed estate property. The brief contends Brown's conduct satisfies the elements for a finding of civil contempt.
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissJRachelle
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.
This document provides a status report regarding a motion for contempt and sanctions filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of Vickie Lynn Marshall's estate against several defendants, including Susan M. Brown and G. Ben Thompson. It summarizes the procedural history of the motion, noting that it has been fully briefed but not yet heard by the court. The parties state they are ready to proceed with a hearing once the court resets it.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in a case involving a plaintiff who was imprisoned at a halfway house operated by the defendant. The court provides background on the case, including that the plaintiff sued over alleged unlawful seizure of his property and constitutional violations. The court evaluates the motions using the standard for summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's motion.
Kristen Stevens, a Florida actress, sued Robert Peterson, a Washington actor, for defamation. Peterson and Stevens had a business and romantic relationship and were members of the social media site HEADSHOT, Inc. After photos emerged of Stevens with another man, Peterson posted defamatory statements about Stevens on HEADSHOT. These statements were seen by others and damaged Stevens' reputation in Florida. Stevens is opposing Peterson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the court has jurisdiction due to their ongoing relationship and Peterson intentionally defaming her, knowing she lived in Florida.
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for SanctionsJRachelle
This document is a motion filed in a civil case in the United States District Court for South Carolina. The motion requests that the defendant G. Ben Thompson be allowed to join the response filed by another defendant, Susan M. Brown, to a motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiff. The motion states that the allegations in the plaintiff's motion for sanctions are the same against both defendants. The attorney for G. Ben Thompson asks to adopt the answer filed by Susan M. Brown in response to the motion for sanctions.
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt MotionJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by attorney Susan Brown in opposition to a motion seeking to hold her in contempt of court. It summarizes the following key points:
1) Defendant Thompson owned a property in the Bahamas called "Horizons" and had a right to possession after Anna Nicole Smith's death.
2) After Smith's death, Defendant Shelley and others entered Horizons to secure it upon being told by Bahamian attorneys and courts to do so immediately.
3) Brown's involvement was limited and she claims to never have publicly disclosed or transferred any materials belonging to Smith's estate in violation of the court order.
order Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Fri 12:58 PM
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion for Leave to Add Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs and for Leave to Add Facts to the Complaint; granting 62 Motion to Amend 60 Motion. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/8/16.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
This document discusses whether service of process on a non-resident journalist was valid when the journalist was induced to enter the forum state of Tennessee under false pretenses. It summarizes the standard for quashing service of process due to fraudulent inducement, and argues that the plaintiff in this case, Coburn, fraudulently induced the defendant, journalist Martinez, to come to Tennessee for settlement negotiations before serving him with process. The document analyzes previous cases where courts quashed service on non-residents who were induced to enter a state for settlement discussions but were then served without warning or time to leave. It contends Coburn took preliminary legal actions and never intended genuine negotiations, so Martinez's presence in Tennessee was invalid for service of
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
On February 27, 2015, DHS, in effect, admitted that its Family Detention Centers were in violation of the Flores settlement by seeking to modify it to allow family detention.
Plaintiff Joan Silver was injured during a hypnotherapy session with Defendant Stanley Fine, a Baltimore County volunteer. Silver did not provide formal notice to the county of her potential lawsuit as required by law. Instead, some months later, she sent an informal email to her former boss, the County Executive, hinting at a possible lawsuit but not explicitly stating her intent. Defendant argues that Silver did not substantially comply with the notice requirement or show good cause for failing to comply. As such, Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
This document discusses the admissibility of four audio calls intercepted by Honduran authorities in 2015 involving members of the MS-13 gang. It argues that portions of the calls are admissible as statements of co-conspirators under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The calls discuss: 1) Intercepted conversations about payments received by the defendant from drug traffickers; 2) The defendant's efforts to have a drug trafficker killed; 3) Drug routes provided by the defendant to the Cachiros drug trafficking organization; and 4) Methods for transporting contraband across the Honduran border with help from Tigre Bonilla. The document maintains that the calls
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the specific reasons they are being sued.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
This document is a motion filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys requesting permission from the court to file a fourth amended complaint. Specifically, the motion requests: (1) changing the class definition; (2) removing Michele Reinhart as a plaintiff and adding George and Susie Pfau; and (3) adding claims against additional defendants including Central Asia Institute and MC Consulting for alleged RICO violations. The motion also details why the plaintiffs' counsel believes the additional claims and parties are necessary.
Edwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awardsPublicLeaks
1. Plaintiff Horace Edwards sues Edward Snowden and others involved in the film Citizenfour, alleging they unlawfully acquired and disclosed classified national security information stolen by Snowden, in violation of secrecy agreements.
2. The complaint alleges Snowden intentionally stole classified information from the NSA and CIA while working for those agencies. He then provided that information to filmmaker Laura Poitras, who worked with others to make the film Citizenfour, revealing the stolen classified information.
3. Plaintiff claims the disclosure of stolen classified information in the film poses a substantial risk of serious injury to himself and others. He alleges insurance fraud related to the film and asserts claims including violations of the Antiterrorism Act. The plaintiff seeks
Similar to Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant (20)
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conferenceJRachelle
The document is an order from a United States District Court judge rescheduling the status conference date in the case Marshall v. Hilliard, et. al. from June 14, 2010 to December 13, 2010 at 8:30 am. The order stipulates that the new date may need to be changed within 30 days of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on whether to grant certiorari in a related case. If no action is taken by December 6, 2010, the parties must either attend the status conference on December 13 or file another stipulation to continue the date.
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)JRachelle
This document contains verdicts from a jury trial in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The jury found defendant Sandeep Kapoor not guilty on all 10 counts. The jury found defendant Khristine Eroshevich guilty on Counts 1, 3, 7, and 9, and found defendant Howard K. Stern guilty on Count 1. The verdicts specify the charges and time periods for each count.
This document is a motion for a stay of the mandate pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. It was filed by Howard K. Stern on behalf of Vickie Lynn Marshall's estate following the 9th Circuit's denial of rehearing. The motion argues that substantial questions will be presented in the cert petition regarding the scope of bankruptcy courts' power over compulsory counterclaims. It contends the 9th Circuit's new test conflicts with other circuits and Supreme Court precedent. The declaration also asserts the petition raises important issues of bankruptcy practice that require uniformity.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Howard K. Stern's motion to stay the mandate in the case of Elaine Marshall v. Howard K. Stern pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The case involved the bankruptcy and estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall (aka Anna Nicole Smith).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari for Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall v. Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall, limiting the questions to be considered to Questions 1, 2, and 3 in the petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and involves a dispute over the estates of Vickie Lynn Marshall and E. Pierce Marshall.
The Supreme Court clerk notified the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clerk that a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed regarding the case of Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall v. Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall. The petition was docketed as case number 10-179 by the Supreme Court on August 5, 2010.
The document is an order from a United States Bankruptcy Court case dismissing an adversary proceeding with prejudice. The order approves a stipulation between the plaintiff Virgie Arthur and defendant Bonnie Gayle Stern to dismiss the adversary proceeding, with each party bearing their own costs and fees. The court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the order.
This document is a stipulation to dismiss an adversary proceeding filed in bankruptcy court. It summarizes that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant seeking to prevent discharge of a debt. The case was then stayed pending resolution of a related state court lawsuit. That state court lawsuit was then dismissed. The parties now wish to dismiss the adversary proceeding with prejudice, with each party bearing their own costs and fees. The court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the dismissal.
This order from a district court concerns a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment that has been filed in a civil case. As one of the defendants is representing himself without an attorney, the court directs the clerk to send him materials to explain summary judgment procedure and relevant extracts from Rules 12 and 56. The defendants have 34 days to respond to the motion. The order also provides guidance on the requirements for affidavits submitted in opposition to summary judgment.
Defendants Susan M. Brown and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. filed a motion to dismiss the allegations directed against them in the First Amended Complaint of the lawsuit Howard K. Stern, as Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith, a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan, a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith vs. Stancil Shelley, et al. The motion argues that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Susan M. Brown and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. upon which relief can be granted. The motion was filed on
This document is a court filing with a case number 4:08-cv-02753-TLW-TER that was filed on July 22, 2010 as entry number 135. It contains 11 pages of text but no other discernible information about the contents or purpose of the filing.
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintJRachelle
This document is an answer filed by defendants Stancil Shelley and Gina Thompson Shelley in response to a first amended complaint. It denies many of the allegations against them, such as wrongfully entering a property and taking property without authorization. It admits some factual allegations, such as names and events, but denies violating any laws or conspiring against the plaintiff. Overall, the document raises various defenses in response to the claims in the first amended complaint.
(1) This document is an order continuing the status conference in the bankruptcy case of Bonnie Gayle Stern.
(2) The previous status conference was set for July 27, 2010. This order continues the status conference to October 26, 2010 at 10:00 am due to the ongoing related litigation in state court.
(3) No appearance is necessary at the July 27 conference, as it has been continued by this order until October 26, 2010 to allow the state court litigation regarding liability and damages against the debtor to continue.
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010JRachelle
This document appears to be a court filing that spans 59 pages. It includes header information that indicates it was filed on July 1, 2010 as entry number 122 in case 4:08-cv-02753-TLW in the court. However, as the document only includes page numbers and headers, its specific contents or purpose cannot be determined from the information provided.
This document is an order from a bankruptcy court case staying an adversary proceeding pending resolution of a related state court case. The order schedules a continued status conference in the bankruptcy court for October 6, 2009 and every 90 days thereafter until judgments on liability and damages are issued in the state court case, or until further court order. The parties must submit a joint status report 14 days before each conference.
1) The parties submitted a joint status report in accordance with local bankruptcy rules regarding an adversary proceeding between Virgie Arthur and Bonnie Gayle Stern.
2) Discovery is ongoing, with the plaintiff anticipating completion in 8-10 months, while the defendant believes discovery could be completed sooner in 3 months if permitted.
3) The plaintiff estimates needing 10-14 days to present their case at trial plus rebuttal, while the defendant anticipates needing 2 days, with the plaintiff intending to call approximately 12 witnesses and the defendant 3-4 witnesses.
This document provides a summary of a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding a longstanding dispute between the estates of Vickie Lynn Marshall and E. Pierce Marshall. The court is revisiting the case after the Supreme Court determined the Ninth Circuit had construed the probate exception too broadly. The case involves a tortious interference claim by Vickie Lynn Marshall against Pierce Marshall regarding a substantial gift from Vickie Lynn's late husband J. Howard Marshall II. The summary is in 3 sentences:
The Ninth Circuit concludes that the findings of an earlier Texas probate court proceeding regarding J. Howard Marshall II's estate plan and intent should be given preclusive effect. The court also finds that the
This document provides a summary of a court case regarding a tortious interference claim by Vickie Lynn Marshall against Pierce Marshall. The summary discusses the background of the case, including the relationships and estates of Vickie Lynn Marshall, J. Howard Marshall II, and Pierce Marshall. It also notes that the tortious interference claim was adjudicated in bankruptcy court, while a probate court in Texas was simultaneously administering J. Howard Marshall II's estate. The court must determine which ruling should be given preclusive effect.
The document consists of the repeated text "W.ROSESPEAKS.COM" spread over multiple lines without any other words or context provided. It appears to be promoting a website address but provides no other information about the site or its purpose in just three repeated lines of text.
This document appears to be a court filing with a case number, date, and page numbers but no other identifiable information. It does not contain any clear text, statements, or information that could be summarized in 3 sentences or less.
FIA officials brutally tortured innocent and snatched 200 Bitcoins of worth 4...jamalseoexpert1978
Farman Ayaz Khattak and Ehtesham Matloob are government officials in CTW Counter terrorism wing Islamabad, in Federal Investigation Agency FIA Headquarters. CTW and FIA kidnapped crypto currency owner from Islamabad and snatched 200 Bitcoins those worth of 4 billion rupees in Pakistan currency. There is not Cryptocurrency Regulations in Pakistan & CTW is official dacoit and stealing digital assets from the innocent crypto holders and making fake cases of terrorism to keep them silent.
How to Implement a Real Estate CRM SoftwareSalesTown
To implement a CRM for real estate, set clear goals, choose a CRM with key real estate features, and customize it to your needs. Migrate your data, train your team, and use automation to save time. Monitor performance, ensure data security, and use the CRM to enhance marketing. Regularly check its effectiveness to improve your business.
Best practices for project execution and deliveryCLIVE MINCHIN
A select set of project management best practices to keep your project on-track, on-cost and aligned to scope. Many firms have don't have the necessary skills, diligence, methods and oversight of their projects; this leads to slippage, higher costs and longer timeframes. Often firms have a history of projects that simply failed to move the needle. These best practices will help your firm avoid these pitfalls but they require fortitude to apply.
SATTA MATKA SATTA FAST RESULT KALYAN TOP MATKA RESULT KALYAN SATTA MATKA FAST RESULT MILAN RATAN RAJDHANI MAIN BAZAR MATKA FAST TIPS RESULT MATKA CHART JODI CHART PANEL CHART FREE FIX GAME SATTAMATKA ! MATKA MOBI SATTA 143 spboss.in TOP NO1 RESULT FULL RATE MATKA ONLINE GAME PLAY BY APP SPBOSS
LA HUG - Video Testimonials with Chynna Morgan - June 2024Lital Barkan
Have you ever heard that user-generated content or video testimonials can take your brand to the next level? We will explore how you can effectively use video testimonials to leverage and boost your sales, content strategy, and increase your CRM data.🤯
We will dig deeper into:
1. How to capture video testimonials that convert from your audience 🎥
2. How to leverage your testimonials to boost your sales 💲
3. How you can capture more CRM data to understand your audience better through video testimonials. 📊
Discover timeless style with the 2022 Vintage Roman Numerals Men's Ring. Crafted from premium stainless steel, this 6mm wide ring embodies elegance and durability. Perfect as a gift, it seamlessly blends classic Roman numeral detailing with modern sophistication, making it an ideal accessory for any occasion.
https://rb.gy/usj1a2
Implicitly or explicitly all competing businesses employ a strategy to select a mix
of marketing resources. Formulating such competitive strategies fundamentally
involves recognizing relationships between elements of the marketing mix (e.g.,
price and product quality), as well as assessing competitive and market conditions
(i.e., industry structure in the language of economics).
Top mailing list providers in the USA.pptxJeremyPeirce1
Discover the top mailing list providers in the USA, offering targeted lists, segmentation, and analytics to optimize your marketing campaigns and drive engagement.
Unveiling the Dynamic Personalities, Key Dates, and Horoscope Insights: Gemin...my Pandit
Explore the fascinating world of the Gemini Zodiac Sign. Discover the unique personality traits, key dates, and horoscope insights of Gemini individuals. Learn how their sociable, communicative nature and boundless curiosity make them the dynamic explorers of the zodiac. Dive into the duality of the Gemini sign and understand their intellectual and adventurous spirit.
Understanding User Needs and Satisfying ThemAggregage
https://www.productmanagementtoday.com/frs/26903918/understanding-user-needs-and-satisfying-them
We know we want to create products which our customers find to be valuable. Whether we label it as customer-centric or product-led depends on how long we've been doing product management. There are three challenges we face when doing this. The obvious challenge is figuring out what our users need; the non-obvious challenges are in creating a shared understanding of those needs and in sensing if what we're doing is meeting those needs.
In this webinar, we won't focus on the research methods for discovering user-needs. We will focus on synthesis of the needs we discover, communication and alignment tools, and how we operationalize addressing those needs.
Industry expert Scott Sehlhorst will:
• Introduce a taxonomy for user goals with real world examples
• Present the Onion Diagram, a tool for contextualizing task-level goals
• Illustrate how customer journey maps capture activity-level and task-level goals
• Demonstrate the best approach to selection and prioritization of user-goals to address
• Highlight the crucial benchmarks, observable changes, in ensuring fulfillment of customer needs
3 Simple Steps To Buy Verified Payoneer Account In 2024SEOSMMEARTH
Buy Verified Payoneer Account: Quick and Secure Way to Receive Payments
Buy Verified Payoneer Account With 100% secure documents, [ USA, UK, CA ]. Are you looking for a reliable and safe way to receive payments online? Then you need buy verified Payoneer account ! Payoneer is a global payment platform that allows businesses and individuals to send and receive money in over 200 countries.
If You Want To More Information just Contact Now:
Skype: SEOSMMEARTH
Telegram: @seosmmearth
Gmail: seosmmearth@gmail.com
3 Simple Steps To Buy Verified Payoneer Account In 2024
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
1. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
HOWARD K. STERN, as Executor of the ) Civil Action No.: 4:08-cv-2753-TLW-TER
Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a/k/a )
Vickie Lynn Smith, a/k/a Vickie Lynn )
Hogan, a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) ORDER
-vs- )
)
)
STANCIL SHELLEY, a/k/a Ford Shelley, )
G. BEN THOMPSON, and John or Jane )
Does 1-12, whose true names are unknown, )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
I. INTRODUCTION
This action arises out of the removal of property belonging to the Estate of Vickie Lynn
Marshall a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith (hereinafter,
the Estate) from a home located in the Bahamas known as Horizons (hereinafter, Horizons), about
which Ms. Smith and Defendants were involved in a contentious dispute regarding ownership at the
time of Ms. Smith’s death. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for conversion, wrongful taking of
estate property in violation of California Probate Code § 850, et seq., statutory and common law
commercial appropriation of right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code § 3344.1, unjust
enrichment/restitution, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional Code
§ 17200, et seq., violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) and civil
conspiracy.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Document # 78) his
2. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 2 of 7
Complaint. Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d), and
20(a)(2) to amend his Complaint to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither), Melanie
Thompson (Melanie), Gina Thompson Shelley (Gina) (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), and
Susan M. Brown (Brown) and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the Law Firm) as party
defendants and to amend and supplement his Complaint with facts learned during the discovery
process. All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) & (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC.
II. RELEVANT FACTS
A. Doe Defendants
In addition to the Defendants named in the Complaint, Plaintiff also names “Doe
Defendants”– unknown persons who “acted in concert with [Defendant Stancil “Ford” Shelley,
(hereinafter, Ford)] concerning property belonging to the Estate.” Complaint ¶ 5. Plaintiff provides
in the original Complaint that he will seek to name these defendants once their identities are
ascertained through discovery. Plaintiff represents in his Motion that Gaither Bengene Thompson,
II (Gaither) and Melanie Thompson (Melanie) have conceded through counsel that they are two of
the Doe Defendants. Further, Gaither and Gina testified that they were personally involved in the
removal of Estate property from Horizons. Gaither Dep. 86-94; Gina Dep. 81-83. Gaither also
testified that Melanie entered Horizons on the day after Ms. Smith’s death and later took an Estate
computer from Ford’s home to her own home for a few days. Gaither Dep. 88, 106.
B. Susan Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C.
Brown entered into an agreement with G. Ben Thompson (hereinafter, Thompson) in October
2006 wherein she agreed to represent him and several entities he owned with regards to his dispute
-2-
3. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 3 of 7
with Smith regarding Horizons. Brown Aff. ¶ 2. At the same time, Brown verbally agreed to
represent other members of Thompson’s family on this matter. Id. Following the removal of Estate
property from Horizons, Ford gave to Brown some of the Estate property, including copies of Estate
computer hard drives. Brown later gave the hard drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm, which had
engaged a computer forensics expert to conduct reviews of the hard drives. Brown Dep. 22-25, 167-
69. Brown also copied Estate property and maintained these copies on her and her firm’s computer.
Id. at 30-37.
C. Additional Facts
As a result of discovery, Plaintiff seeks to add additional factual allegations that he argues
provide him with additional grounds for relief. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to allege that Ford
distributed Estate property to more third-parties than originally learned, including Geraldo Rivera
with Fox News, the O’Quinn Law Firm, former television journalist Rita Cosby, and the California
Department of Justice. Ford Dep. I at 140-141, 91-93; Ford Dep. II at 29; Brown Dep. at 163-64,
199-201.
Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to allege post-Complaint facts which he asserts warrant
supplementing the Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to allege that Brown maintained copies
of Estate property on her own computer without disclosing the fact to Plaintiff or the Court. Brown
Dep. at 30-37.
III. DISCUSSION
As stated above, Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d),
and 20(a)(2) to amend his Complaint to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither), Melanie
Thompson (Melanie), Gina Thompson Shelley (Gina) (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), and
-3-
4. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 4 of 7
Susan M. Brown (Brown) and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the Law Firm) as party
defendants and to amend and supplement his Complaint with facts learned during the discovery
process. Counsel for Ford has consented to the filing of the proposed Amended Complaint. See
Email from MacDonald to Lantta dated October 28, 2009. Thompson has not filed a Response in
opposition the motion. The only opposition comes from proposed new Defendants Brown and the
Law Firm.1 Brown argues that allowing the amendments would be prejudicial to her and would be
futile as to the claims against her. Brown does not appear to oppose the addition of Gaither, Melanie
and Gina as Defendants in this action or to the addition of factual allegations regarding Ford’s
distribution of Estate property to other third-parties.
Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given when justice so
requires.” “The law is well-settled ‘that leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the
amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or the amendment would be futile.’” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242
(4th Cir.1999)(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) and quoting
Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503,509-10 (4th Cir.1986)).
Addition of Gaither, Melanie, and Gina is appropriate under Rule 15(a) and Rule 20(a)(2)
and is unopposed. Further, addition of the factual allegations regarding Ford’s distribution of Estate
property is appropriate under Rule 15(a) and is unopposed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted
as to these proposed amendments.
The only proposed amendments at issue are the addition of Brown as a Defendant and the
1
For ease of reference, any further use of “Brown” within this Order will refer to both
Susan Brown and the Law Firm, unless otherwise noted.
-4-
5. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 5 of 7
factual allegations against her. Brown first argues that adding her to the case would be prejudicial.
She argues that numerous depositions have already been taken and the expert disclosure and
discovery deadlines have passed. She argues that she would be prejudiced due to the fact that she
has not had the opportunity to participate in discovery as a party. However, in his Response,
Plaintiff asserts that he is not opposed to amending the deadlines in this case to allow Brown to
conduct discovery. Further, Plaintiff argues that Brown, as counsel for Thompson, fully participated
in the discovery that has occurred in this case thus far. Because Plaintiff is not seeking to add any
new legal theories, any additional discovery that is needed should be fairly limited. All of the
proposed new Defendants, including Brown, have already been deposed regarding their involvement
in the facts underlying this case. The need for additional discovery and an amended scheduling order
is not sufficiently prejudicial to outweigh the mandate that leave to amend a complaint be “freely
given.” See N.C. ex rel. Long v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 711 F.Supp. 257, 259-60
(E.D.N.C.1989) (noting that the fact that parties will have to conduct additional discovery “does not
suffice as a showing of prejudice”). Thus, the undersigned finds that allowing the amendment would
not be prejudicial.
Brown also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the addition of any claims
against her would be futile. For a motion to amend to be denied for futility, the amendment must
be “clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d at 510-511; see also
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, AG, 304 F.Supp.2d 812, 819 (E.D.Va.2004) (“Courts
generally favor the ‘resolution of cases on their merits’ ... [t]hus the substantive merits of a proposed
claim [or defense] are typically best left for later resolution, e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary
judgment, ..., or for resolution at trial.”) (quoting Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613
-5-
6. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 6 of 7
(4th Cir.1980)); see also Robinson v. GEO Licensing Co., L.L.C., 173 F.Supp.2d 419, 423
(D.Md.2001).
Brown argues that, as former counsel in this case, she is immune from the claims Plaintiff
seeks to allege. Generally, an attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from the
performance of his or her professional activities as an attorney on behalf of and with the knowledge
of his or her client. See Hunt v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, 522 F. Supp.2d 749, 758 (D.S.C.
2007). However, both Thompson and Ford testify that they did not authorize her to distribute Estate
property to the O’Quinn Law Firm. Shelley Dep. I at 164; Thompson Dep. at 152. Thus, a question
of fact exists as to whether Brown is immune from the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against her.
Brown also addresses each cause of action and argues that Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim
against her under any of his theories of recovery. Brown argues that Plaintiff incorrectly assumes
that California law will apply in this action. Brown argues generally that South Carolina law applies
under the doctrine of lex loci delicti because the alleged injuries occurred in South Carolina.
Plaintiff does not dispute that the lex loci delicti doctrine, that is, the law of the state in which the
injury occurred, is applicable to these claims. Instead, Plaintiff argues that for the statutory claims
asserted by Plaintiff for misappropriation of publicity rights, unfair competition, and wrongful
taking of Estate property, the injury occurred in Plaintiff’s domicile, which Plaintiff alleges is
California. Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12, 28. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s common law claims
are properly pleaded under either California law or South Carolina law. As for the California
statutory claims, while neither party thoroughly addresses the choice of law issue, for a motion to
amend to be denied for futility, the proposed amendment must be “clearly insufficient or frivolous
-6-
7. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 7 of 7
on its face.” Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d at 510-511. Based upon the record presented, the
undersigned cannot conclude the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are clearly insufficient or
frivolous.2 Accordingly, allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint would not be futile.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, Brown has failed to show that allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to add her
would be prejudicial or futile. Further, none of the parties object to allowing Plaintiff to add the Doe
Defendants or the new factual allegations. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Document
# 78) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint, which is
attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff must serve the Amended Complaint within 15
days of the date of this Order. Defendants must respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
July 1, 2010
Florence, South Carolina
2
It is further noted that Plaintiff does not seek to amend his Complaint to add claims under
California law. Those claims are already pending.
-7-