The document is a court opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a copyright infringement case brought on behalf of a crested macaque monkey named Naruto. The court had to determine whether Naruto had standing to sue under both Article III of the Constitution and the Copyright Act. While the court found Naruto had Article III standing based on precedent, it ultimately concluded that Naruto lacked statutory standing under the Copyright Act because the Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.
Ms. Randolph is appealing her conviction and sentence. She filed an emergency motion for release pending appeal after the district court denied her request. She argues that she meets the criteria for release: (1) she does not pose a risk of flight or danger; and (2) her appeal raises substantial questions that could result in reversal or a new trial. Specifically, she cites issues with the sufficiency of evidence, discovery violations, and errors in the government's billing spreadsheets presented at trial. She requests that the court grant her release pending resolution of her appeal.
Ab As Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Aba V. Ftclawjack
The American Bar Association filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the Federal Trade Commission. The ABA argues that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority by applying the Red Flags identity theft prevention regulations to lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Specifically, the ABA asserts that under previous case law, the FTC needs unmistakably clear congressional authorization to regulate the legal profession, which is lacking here. Additionally, the ABA claims that lawyers are not "creditors" under the relevant statutes and therefore not subject to the Red Flags Rule requirements.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan sued Darren Chaker to remove public records about McMillan's being named in a child molestation investigation. The report is contained as an exhibit in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL and can also be seen on this profile.
Nonetheless, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney suffered a miserable loss in San Diego federal court, then appealed the loss to the Ninth Circuit. San Diego attorney Scott McMillan also filed an identical lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL. As expected, the Ninth Circuit found the lawsuit against Darren Chaker was meritless.
Now, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan is facing two anti-SLAPP motions in San Diego Superior Court and of course the inevitable embarrassment of losing his case, which is almost as bad as Scott McMillan having been sued twice recently for fraud and legal malpractice.
This appeal involves two claims brought by Nancy Williams against Beth Shalom Synagogue and Rabbi Bryant: 1) gender discrimination under Title VII; and 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Williams was hired as the Director of Family Grief Services but was subjected to daily belittling and demeaning behavior by Rabbi Bryant over a period of six months. When Williams complained to the Board of Trustees, they dismissed her claims and told her to tolerate Bryant's behavior. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the ministerial exception barred the Title VII claim and that Williams failed to raise issues of fact regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress. Williams now appeals both rulings.
The document is the brief of appellee Susan K. Woodard, the Chapter 7 trustee, filed in response to an appeal by Thomas Allen Chesley. The brief contains four main arguments: 1) Chesley's general release settlement agreement from his personal injury lawsuit is not a disability income benefit under Florida law. 2) The settlement proceeds were not paid under an insurance policy as required by Florida law. 3) Chesley has failed to show that any factual findings of the lower courts were clearly erroneous. 4) Issues raised in Chesley's brief do not require further argument. The trustee argues the lower courts correctly applied Florida exemption law and their decisions should be affirmed.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opposes four motions filed by thirty-four entities seeking to file amicus curiae briefs in support of plaintiff Mingo Logan Coal Company in its lawsuit against the EPA. The EPA argues the proposed amicus briefs do not meet the criteria for participation as amicus curiae because the amici do not provide a unique perspective or expertise beyond what the parties can provide, their interests are closely aligned with Mingo Logan's, and their briefs would effectively double the length of Mingo Logan's filing. The EPA requests the court deny the motions for leave to file amicus briefs.
Chief Defendant Antoine L. Freeman J. D. "Attorney at Law" Considered Pro Se ...Louis Charles Hamilton II
(1) The plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, files a pro se civil suit and offers a settlement to the defendant, Antoine L. Freeman.
(2) The settlement offer includes the return of lost wages and stolen tools by March 30th, 2015 or the plaintiff will seek damages of 2/3 the actual losses at a hearing on that date.
(3) If discovery requests are not answered within 90 days, the plaintiff will seek full treble damages under RICO and intend to depose the defendant.
Ms. Randolph is appealing her conviction and sentence. She filed an emergency motion for release pending appeal after the district court denied her request. She argues that she meets the criteria for release: (1) she does not pose a risk of flight or danger; and (2) her appeal raises substantial questions that could result in reversal or a new trial. Specifically, she cites issues with the sufficiency of evidence, discovery violations, and errors in the government's billing spreadsheets presented at trial. She requests that the court grant her release pending resolution of her appeal.
Ab As Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Aba V. Ftclawjack
The American Bar Association filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the Federal Trade Commission. The ABA argues that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority by applying the Red Flags identity theft prevention regulations to lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Specifically, the ABA asserts that under previous case law, the FTC needs unmistakably clear congressional authorization to regulate the legal profession, which is lacking here. Additionally, the ABA claims that lawyers are not "creditors" under the relevant statutes and therefore not subject to the Red Flags Rule requirements.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan sued Darren Chaker to remove public records about McMillan's being named in a child molestation investigation. The report is contained as an exhibit in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL and can also be seen on this profile.
Nonetheless, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney suffered a miserable loss in San Diego federal court, then appealed the loss to the Ninth Circuit. San Diego attorney Scott McMillan also filed an identical lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2017-00036344-CU-NP-CTL. As expected, the Ninth Circuit found the lawsuit against Darren Chaker was meritless.
Now, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan is facing two anti-SLAPP motions in San Diego Superior Court and of course the inevitable embarrassment of losing his case, which is almost as bad as Scott McMillan having been sued twice recently for fraud and legal malpractice.
This appeal involves two claims brought by Nancy Williams against Beth Shalom Synagogue and Rabbi Bryant: 1) gender discrimination under Title VII; and 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Williams was hired as the Director of Family Grief Services but was subjected to daily belittling and demeaning behavior by Rabbi Bryant over a period of six months. When Williams complained to the Board of Trustees, they dismissed her claims and told her to tolerate Bryant's behavior. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the ministerial exception barred the Title VII claim and that Williams failed to raise issues of fact regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress. Williams now appeals both rulings.
The document is the brief of appellee Susan K. Woodard, the Chapter 7 trustee, filed in response to an appeal by Thomas Allen Chesley. The brief contains four main arguments: 1) Chesley's general release settlement agreement from his personal injury lawsuit is not a disability income benefit under Florida law. 2) The settlement proceeds were not paid under an insurance policy as required by Florida law. 3) Chesley has failed to show that any factual findings of the lower courts were clearly erroneous. 4) Issues raised in Chesley's brief do not require further argument. The trustee argues the lower courts correctly applied Florida exemption law and their decisions should be affirmed.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opposes four motions filed by thirty-four entities seeking to file amicus curiae briefs in support of plaintiff Mingo Logan Coal Company in its lawsuit against the EPA. The EPA argues the proposed amicus briefs do not meet the criteria for participation as amicus curiae because the amici do not provide a unique perspective or expertise beyond what the parties can provide, their interests are closely aligned with Mingo Logan's, and their briefs would effectively double the length of Mingo Logan's filing. The EPA requests the court deny the motions for leave to file amicus briefs.
Chief Defendant Antoine L. Freeman J. D. "Attorney at Law" Considered Pro Se ...Louis Charles Hamilton II
(1) The plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, files a pro se civil suit and offers a settlement to the defendant, Antoine L. Freeman.
(2) The settlement offer includes the return of lost wages and stolen tools by March 30th, 2015 or the plaintiff will seek damages of 2/3 the actual losses at a hearing on that date.
(3) If discovery requests are not answered within 90 days, the plaintiff will seek full treble damages under RICO and intend to depose the defendant.
A former NBA player, Justin Brown, has filed a civil lawsuit against Cleveland Cavaliers player J.R. Smith seeking $2.5 million in damages. Brown alleges that during an incident last November in New York City, Smith choked and struck him in the head after Brown made a comment to Smith outside of a pizza restaurant. While Brown was not arrested at the time, he is now pursuing legal action over alleged physical injuries and emotional distress from the incident. Smith's attorney claims this lawsuit is frivolous and intends to defend Smith aggressively, calling it a "cash grab" by Brown.
Indiana Senate = answer to plaintiffs complaint and other defensesAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
As Indiana lawmaker attempt to hire their own counsel to represent them in the sexual harassment case involving Attorney General Curtis Hill, they also spell out their own defenses as to why the state is not liable.
In The United States District Court Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attor...Louis Charles Hamilton II
To: Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)” and His Counsel of Record filed herein,
Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Propounded “First Set” of Interrogatories.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, it is hereby requested and demanded of Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)”
responds to this “First Set of Interrogatories” within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
Answers and Objections.
(1) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to,
in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.
(2) The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.
(3) The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
A shorter or longer time may be directed by the court or, in the absence of such an order, agreed to in writing by the parties subject to Rule 29.
(4) All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.
Explain in full expert Attorney at Law details, and Supply in full details also any and all legal court documents, letters, faxes, text, memos, emails, in support from the date of December 18th 2007 throughout the dates of October 14th 2009 you
Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman, J.D. Texas Bar No. 24058299 herein was (Only) acting in the “legal capacitates” as a Attorney at Law to file a General Denial (Only)
to reply in the Complaint made against Co-Defendant(s) Joyce M. Guy and Edward McCray( herein )
In a civil suit in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County Texas filed in Cause No. A-180805 that you were retain to for such services from said time frame of December 18th 2007
and still remaining (Acting) Attorney of record throughout the dates of October 14th 2009, up till the dates November 13th 2009 10:22 AM when you file a “Motion for Withdrawal” in cause No. A-180805
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.
The en banc court held that the Supreme Court has clearly established through Glover v. United States and Lafler v. Cooper that Strickland v. Washington governs claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in noncapital sentencing proceedings. This overruled previous Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary. The court then remanded the case back to the original three-judge panel to resolve the petition applying the corrected standard that Strickland applies.
Appellate practice standards of review in civil casesUmesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes the standards of review that federal appellate courts use in civil cases. There are four main standards: de novo review (no deference), clearly erroneous review (highly deferent), substantial evidence review, and abuse of discretion review. The standard applied depends on the specific legal issue or ruling being reviewed. Factual findings are generally reviewed for clear error while legal conclusions receive de novo review. Various pretrial matters and rulings are also summarized along with the applicable standard of review.
Defendant Roberts filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Linda Smith's negligence complaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. Roberts argues that Smith failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligence - that Roberts owed a legal duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused Smith's injury and damages. Specifically, Smith did not allege that Roberts owed her a legal duty. Roberts requests that the court dismiss Smith's claim or require her to provide a more definite statement that properly pleads negligence.
Native American Law Report, March 2015 issueLexisNexis
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case involving the sale of a membership interest in a casino. Ted and Maria Gatzaros sold their membership interest in an entity that owned 50% of a casino to Monroe Partners for $265 million, to be paid over time. Monroe then sold the interest to Kewadin Greektown Casino. Kewadin and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians guaranteed payment if Kewadin defaulted. Kewadin and Monroe later filed for bankruptcy. The Gatzaros sought to recover nearly $74 million still owed from the sale from the tribe, but lower courts found the tribe had not waived defenses to the claims and the Gatzaros
This document discusses spoliation of evidence claims and the preservation and destruction of evidence. It covers:
1) What constitutes evidence, including documents, testimony, tangible objects, video footage, computer data, logs, witness statements, samples, recordings, and more.
2) How the destruction of evidence can lead to an "adverse presumption" against the destroying party, meaning a jury may presume the evidence would have been unfavorable to them.
3) Available remedies for spoliation include discovery sanctions like fines, dismissal, or default judgment, as well as allowing an adverse presumption instruction to the jury.
4) Defenses to spoliation claims include if litigation was not foreseen,
Indiana House - answer to plaintiffs complaint and other ...Abdul-Hakim Shabazz
As Indiana lawmaker attempt to hire their own counsel to represent them in the sexual harassment case involving Attorney General Curtis Hill, they also spell out their own defenses as to why the state is not liable.
The document describes a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Denver ordinance banning pit bulls. It provides background on the ordinance and its enforcement provisions. It then summarizes the plaintiffs' allegations that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and deprives them of substantive due process by banning their dogs. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims at the motion to dismiss stage without permitting oral argument or discovery. On appeal, the court of appeals must determine whether dismissal was premature.
This document contains 25 multiple choice questions about proper legal citation format based on the Bluebook system. The questions cover a range of citation formats for constitutions, statutes, cases, regulations, books, and newspapers in both US and state-level jurisdictions.
The court order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination case. The plaintiff, an employee at a Veteran's hospital, claimed she was reassigned positions without her consent due to her perceived disabilities, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. To establish a prima facie discrimination case, the plaintiff must show she has a disability, is otherwise qualified for the position, and was subjected to discrimination due to her disability. While the defendant disputed the plaintiff's qualifications, the court found issues of fact remained due to opposing declarations, requiring a trial. Therefore, summary judgment was denied on the plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim.
Plaintiff Phillip Lee Walters filed a motion to remand a negligence lawsuit back to state court that was removed to federal court by defendants Samuel Patterson and Keen Transport based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that removal was improper because the defendants did not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as is required for diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff notes that the complaint does not specify a damages amount and contends that the defendants rely only on unsupported assumptions to claim the threshold is met rather than providing evidence, as is required. The plaintiff requests that the case be remanded back to state court due to lack of federal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs Laura Krottner, Ishaya Shamasa, and Joseph Lalli sued Starbucks after a laptop containing their unencrypted personal information was stolen from Starbucks. The district court dismissed their claims for lack of standing under Article III. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part but found that Plaintiffs had standing, as the theft of their personal information presented a credible threat of real harm from future identity theft. While only Lalli alleged current injury from anxiety, the other Plaintiffs' increased risk of identity theft was sufficient for standing purposes.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision finding that a California law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violates the First Amendment. The Court held that video games are a protected form of speech and that new categories of unprotected speech cannot be created by legislatures. Since violence is not included in the limited categories of unprotected speech like obscenity, and there is no long tradition of restricting minors' access to violent depictions, the law created a new category of restricted speech based only on its content and was thus unconstitutional.
Seven Haitian asylum seekers ("Doe Plaintiffs") sought to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against the U.S. government regarding asylum policies for Haitians. The court granted their request, finding that revealing their identities could endanger them and their families due to threats and violence they faced in Haiti. While open proceedings are important, the Doe Plaintiffs' privacy interests outweighed disclosure risks given threats of physical harm and the sensitivity of information involved. Allowing anonymity would not prejudice the government's defense.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA.docxjoyjonna282
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff
Against DECISION
ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
JANE JOHNSON,
PISSEDPRODUCER.COM, INC,
Defendants
------------------------------------------------------X
Haas, J.,
Defendant Jane Johnson (“Johnson”) lives in Portland, Oregon, and operates
defendant corporation, pissedproducer.com (the “website”). The website is devoted to
allowing service providers to complain about actions of consumers. According to the
website’s terms, business owners or service providers are allowed to post feedback about
consumers “that other producers should be wary of.” The website also allows aggrieved
producers to publish the names, addresses and other personal information about
consumers, along with audio and video files that relate to the transaction.
On June 12, YR-01, Brenda James (“James”) posted a story regarding plaintiff,
Douglas Smith (“Smith”) in which she accused him of, inter alia, lying about his
conversations with her, behaving antagonistically towards her and unjustifiably
complaining about her business. She also posted information about Smith’s name,
address and license plate number and a video that showed a confrontation between her
and Smith.
Johnson knowingly allowed this information to remain on her site in spite of
Smith’s protest.
2
Smith brought the present action against Johnson and the corporation that holds
the website alleging defamation, invasion of privacy for intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy for misappropriation of name and likeness and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all three defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) because plaintiff is a resident of California and defendants are residents of
Oregon and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. This is undisputed.
Johnson and the website have moved to dismiss the complaint based on FRCP
Rule 12(b)(2), alleging that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her and
under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
with respect to each of the four counts of the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, I deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to each count.
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Johnson and the
website because they operate exclusively in the state of Oregon and have insufficient
contacts with California to subject them to personal jurisdiction in the state of California.
Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, a state may exercise long arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with it s ...
This document discusses a lawsuit brought by animal welfare groups against Ringling Bros. circus regarding its treatment of endangered Asian elephants. The groups alleged that Ringling's use of bullhooks and chaining of elephants constituted an unlawful "taking" under the Endangered Species Act. A district court initially dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. An appeals court reversed, but on remand the district court again found no standing. The appeals court upheld this ruling, finding the individual plaintiff lacked credibility in claiming emotional attachment to the elephants and that the animal advocacy group failed to demonstrate their public education activities were concretely impacted by Ringling's practices.
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.
A former NBA player, Justin Brown, has filed a civil lawsuit against Cleveland Cavaliers player J.R. Smith seeking $2.5 million in damages. Brown alleges that during an incident last November in New York City, Smith choked and struck him in the head after Brown made a comment to Smith outside of a pizza restaurant. While Brown was not arrested at the time, he is now pursuing legal action over alleged physical injuries and emotional distress from the incident. Smith's attorney claims this lawsuit is frivolous and intends to defend Smith aggressively, calling it a "cash grab" by Brown.
Indiana Senate = answer to plaintiffs complaint and other defensesAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
As Indiana lawmaker attempt to hire their own counsel to represent them in the sexual harassment case involving Attorney General Curtis Hill, they also spell out their own defenses as to why the state is not liable.
In The United States District Court Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attor...Louis Charles Hamilton II
To: Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)” and His Counsel of Record filed herein,
Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Propounded “First Set” of Interrogatories.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, it is hereby requested and demanded of Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)”
responds to this “First Set of Interrogatories” within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
Answers and Objections.
(1) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to,
in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.
(2) The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.
(3) The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
A shorter or longer time may be directed by the court or, in the absence of such an order, agreed to in writing by the parties subject to Rule 29.
(4) All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.
Explain in full expert Attorney at Law details, and Supply in full details also any and all legal court documents, letters, faxes, text, memos, emails, in support from the date of December 18th 2007 throughout the dates of October 14th 2009 you
Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman, J.D. Texas Bar No. 24058299 herein was (Only) acting in the “legal capacitates” as a Attorney at Law to file a General Denial (Only)
to reply in the Complaint made against Co-Defendant(s) Joyce M. Guy and Edward McCray( herein )
In a civil suit in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County Texas filed in Cause No. A-180805 that you were retain to for such services from said time frame of December 18th 2007
and still remaining (Acting) Attorney of record throughout the dates of October 14th 2009, up till the dates November 13th 2009 10:22 AM when you file a “Motion for Withdrawal” in cause No. A-180805
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.
The en banc court held that the Supreme Court has clearly established through Glover v. United States and Lafler v. Cooper that Strickland v. Washington governs claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in noncapital sentencing proceedings. This overruled previous Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary. The court then remanded the case back to the original three-judge panel to resolve the petition applying the corrected standard that Strickland applies.
Appellate practice standards of review in civil casesUmesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes the standards of review that federal appellate courts use in civil cases. There are four main standards: de novo review (no deference), clearly erroneous review (highly deferent), substantial evidence review, and abuse of discretion review. The standard applied depends on the specific legal issue or ruling being reviewed. Factual findings are generally reviewed for clear error while legal conclusions receive de novo review. Various pretrial matters and rulings are also summarized along with the applicable standard of review.
Defendant Roberts filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Linda Smith's negligence complaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. Roberts argues that Smith failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligence - that Roberts owed a legal duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused Smith's injury and damages. Specifically, Smith did not allege that Roberts owed her a legal duty. Roberts requests that the court dismiss Smith's claim or require her to provide a more definite statement that properly pleads negligence.
Native American Law Report, March 2015 issueLexisNexis
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case involving the sale of a membership interest in a casino. Ted and Maria Gatzaros sold their membership interest in an entity that owned 50% of a casino to Monroe Partners for $265 million, to be paid over time. Monroe then sold the interest to Kewadin Greektown Casino. Kewadin and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians guaranteed payment if Kewadin defaulted. Kewadin and Monroe later filed for bankruptcy. The Gatzaros sought to recover nearly $74 million still owed from the sale from the tribe, but lower courts found the tribe had not waived defenses to the claims and the Gatzaros
This document discusses spoliation of evidence claims and the preservation and destruction of evidence. It covers:
1) What constitutes evidence, including documents, testimony, tangible objects, video footage, computer data, logs, witness statements, samples, recordings, and more.
2) How the destruction of evidence can lead to an "adverse presumption" against the destroying party, meaning a jury may presume the evidence would have been unfavorable to them.
3) Available remedies for spoliation include discovery sanctions like fines, dismissal, or default judgment, as well as allowing an adverse presumption instruction to the jury.
4) Defenses to spoliation claims include if litigation was not foreseen,
Indiana House - answer to plaintiffs complaint and other ...Abdul-Hakim Shabazz
As Indiana lawmaker attempt to hire their own counsel to represent them in the sexual harassment case involving Attorney General Curtis Hill, they also spell out their own defenses as to why the state is not liable.
The document describes a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Denver ordinance banning pit bulls. It provides background on the ordinance and its enforcement provisions. It then summarizes the plaintiffs' allegations that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and deprives them of substantive due process by banning their dogs. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims at the motion to dismiss stage without permitting oral argument or discovery. On appeal, the court of appeals must determine whether dismissal was premature.
This document contains 25 multiple choice questions about proper legal citation format based on the Bluebook system. The questions cover a range of citation formats for constitutions, statutes, cases, regulations, books, and newspapers in both US and state-level jurisdictions.
The court order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination case. The plaintiff, an employee at a Veteran's hospital, claimed she was reassigned positions without her consent due to her perceived disabilities, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. To establish a prima facie discrimination case, the plaintiff must show she has a disability, is otherwise qualified for the position, and was subjected to discrimination due to her disability. While the defendant disputed the plaintiff's qualifications, the court found issues of fact remained due to opposing declarations, requiring a trial. Therefore, summary judgment was denied on the plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim.
Plaintiff Phillip Lee Walters filed a motion to remand a negligence lawsuit back to state court that was removed to federal court by defendants Samuel Patterson and Keen Transport based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that removal was improper because the defendants did not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as is required for diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff notes that the complaint does not specify a damages amount and contends that the defendants rely only on unsupported assumptions to claim the threshold is met rather than providing evidence, as is required. The plaintiff requests that the case be remanded back to state court due to lack of federal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs Laura Krottner, Ishaya Shamasa, and Joseph Lalli sued Starbucks after a laptop containing their unencrypted personal information was stolen from Starbucks. The district court dismissed their claims for lack of standing under Article III. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part but found that Plaintiffs had standing, as the theft of their personal information presented a credible threat of real harm from future identity theft. While only Lalli alleged current injury from anxiety, the other Plaintiffs' increased risk of identity theft was sufficient for standing purposes.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision finding that a California law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violates the First Amendment. The Court held that video games are a protected form of speech and that new categories of unprotected speech cannot be created by legislatures. Since violence is not included in the limited categories of unprotected speech like obscenity, and there is no long tradition of restricting minors' access to violent depictions, the law created a new category of restricted speech based only on its content and was thus unconstitutional.
Seven Haitian asylum seekers ("Doe Plaintiffs") sought to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against the U.S. government regarding asylum policies for Haitians. The court granted their request, finding that revealing their identities could endanger them and their families due to threats and violence they faced in Haiti. While open proceedings are important, the Doe Plaintiffs' privacy interests outweighed disclosure risks given threats of physical harm and the sensitivity of information involved. Allowing anonymity would not prejudice the government's defense.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA.docxjoyjonna282
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff
Against DECISION
ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
JANE JOHNSON,
PISSEDPRODUCER.COM, INC,
Defendants
------------------------------------------------------X
Haas, J.,
Defendant Jane Johnson (“Johnson”) lives in Portland, Oregon, and operates
defendant corporation, pissedproducer.com (the “website”). The website is devoted to
allowing service providers to complain about actions of consumers. According to the
website’s terms, business owners or service providers are allowed to post feedback about
consumers “that other producers should be wary of.” The website also allows aggrieved
producers to publish the names, addresses and other personal information about
consumers, along with audio and video files that relate to the transaction.
On June 12, YR-01, Brenda James (“James”) posted a story regarding plaintiff,
Douglas Smith (“Smith”) in which she accused him of, inter alia, lying about his
conversations with her, behaving antagonistically towards her and unjustifiably
complaining about her business. She also posted information about Smith’s name,
address and license plate number and a video that showed a confrontation between her
and Smith.
Johnson knowingly allowed this information to remain on her site in spite of
Smith’s protest.
2
Smith brought the present action against Johnson and the corporation that holds
the website alleging defamation, invasion of privacy for intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy for misappropriation of name and likeness and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all three defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) because plaintiff is a resident of California and defendants are residents of
Oregon and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. This is undisputed.
Johnson and the website have moved to dismiss the complaint based on FRCP
Rule 12(b)(2), alleging that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her and
under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
with respect to each of the four counts of the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, I deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to each count.
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Johnson and the
website because they operate exclusively in the state of Oregon and have insufficient
contacts with California to subject them to personal jurisdiction in the state of California.
Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, a state may exercise long arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with it s ...
This document discusses a lawsuit brought by animal welfare groups against Ringling Bros. circus regarding its treatment of endangered Asian elephants. The groups alleged that Ringling's use of bullhooks and chaining of elephants constituted an unlawful "taking" under the Endangered Species Act. A district court initially dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. An appeals court reversed, but on remand the district court again found no standing. The appeals court upheld this ruling, finding the individual plaintiff lacked credibility in claiming emotional attachment to the elephants and that the animal advocacy group failed to demonstrate their public education activities were concretely impacted by Ringling's practices.
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.
- Congressman James Sensenbrenner, author of the Patriot Act, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs challenging the NSA's mass telephone metadata collection program.
- He argues that Congress intended to authorize collection of documents and records only upon a showing of relevance to an authorized investigation, not a blanket collection of all telephone call records.
- Sensenbrenner also asserts that Congress did not intend to authorize indiscriminate collection of data on every telephone call to or from the US, which violates the privacy of millions of innocent Americans.
This document contains Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu's objections to a report and recommendations regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff objects on several grounds: (1) that the judge did not properly consider all documents submitted and failed to acknowledge admissions by Defendants; (2) that the Fourth Amendment protects third parties from searches of their property; (3) that requests for religious accommodation were denied; and (4) that conditions at the halfway house violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiff argues these objections demonstrate the complaint should not be dismissed.
When the United States Inc violates your GOD GIVEN RIGHTS - RELIEF IS MANDATORYSueBozgoz
Americans understand your GOD GIVEN NATURAL RIGHTS AND WHAT Subject Matter Jurisdiction is. SMJ is everything and the UNITED STATE INC's game is - NOT TO ESTABLISH SMJ. Bottom line: They are filling jails as everything in America is about BUSINESS.
The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Gregory B. Clark's parents after he died from injuries sustained in a car accident. Clark was a passenger in a car driven by an intoxicated minor. The plaintiffs sued the state of Arizona, arguing the state was partially responsible because it had abolished its dram shop act, which had previously allowed for liability against establishments that served alcohol to minors. The appellate court ruled that abolishing the dram shop act was a discretionary function of the state legislature and did not create a special relationship between the state and minors, so the state was immune from liability under the public duty doctrine
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.
The poem "Theme for English B" by Langston Hughes addresses the topic of personal identity and how it relates to culture. The poem suggests that personal identity is a choice rather than being defined by one's DNA or culture. It discusses the difficulty people face in setting aside cultural differences in order to find acceptance in the world. While culture plays a role in how one lives, personal identity should not be limited by others' biases based on one's community or skin color. Finding common interests and self-identity is more important for bringing people together than cultural differences.
This document is a response to a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court regarding a case involving former CIA operatives, referred to as John and Jane Doe, seeking financial assistance and personal security from the CIA. The Ninth Circuit held that the state secrets privilege governs this case, not the jurisdictional bar in Totten v. United States. The response argues that: 1) Reynolds established that it is the judiciary's role to determine if the state secrets privilege applies; 2) Webster confirmed the privilege applies to CIA cases and constitutional claims cannot be foreclosed; and 3) dismissing the case without review of the privilege claim would raise serious constitutional issues.
This document is a response to a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. It summarizes a case involving former CIA assets (John and Jane Doe), who are now US citizens, bringing Fifth Amendment claims against the CIA. The Does allege the CIA coerced them into spying during the Cold War and promised lifelong financial assistance, but has since denied their requests for assistance. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Totten v. United States does not require immediate dismissal and Reynolds v. United States procedures for asserting the state secrets privilege must be followed. The response argues the Ninth Circuit's decision is correct and consistent with Webster v. Doe.
The article argues that while the Supreme Court was right to rule the "Crush Video Law" unconstitutional, it missed an opportunity to establish preventing animal cruelty as a compelling government interest. This could have important implications for future cases. The article provides examples showing how US courts have prioritized trivial human interests and powerful industries over protecting animals from cruelty. It claims the courts' approach has led to unjust decisions and fails to protect vulnerable groups.
CitySt.Paul heinous Civil,Criminal,Constitutional Rights to Shut off Sharon Water, www.sharonanderson.org
then Steal Sharons Cars,Trailers,Propertys, but Theft,Trespass,Treason, must be abated,Damages Award
This document summarizes a law review article that examines differing interpretations among circuit courts of the mens rea (mental state) requirement for conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841, which criminalizes possession or distribution of chemicals knowing or having reasonable cause to believe they will be used to make controlled substances. Most circuits require the prosecution to prove the defendant had reasonable cause to believe this would occur, using an objective standard, while the 10th Circuit requires proving actual knowledge, a subjective standard. The author explores the debate between objective and subjective mens rea standards.
Gregory Zilch is charged with second-degree murder for shooting and killing Tavaris Mercer. Zilch's attorney analyzed whether self-defense could be claimed based on the facts of the case and Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The attorney concluded that Zilch has a strong chance of acquittal based on precedent that found George Zimmerman not guilty for similar actions claiming self-defense. The attorney believes Zilch can prove by a preponderance of evidence that he acted in self-defense and is therefore immune from prosecution under Stand Your Ground laws. A motion to dismiss will be filed based on these arguments.
This document discusses the emergence and realization of supply chain management (SCM). It provides five reasons for the increased awareness of interconnectivity between enterprises: 1) response to business requirements like JIT and TQM, 2) focus on external rather than internal processes, 3) preference for divestment over vertical integration, 4) effects of globalization and ICT, and 5) enterprise reengineering. Realizing SCM requires considering five major factors: the voice of the customer, agility and flexibility, information and communication technologies, evolving marketing and distribution channels, and supply chain logistics integration.
Scm 01 structure and decisions in a supply chainshivaniradhu
1) A supply chain consists of all parties involved in fulfilling customer requests, including manufacturers, suppliers, transporters, warehouses, retailers, and customers. It involves functions like new product development, marketing, operations, distribution, finance, and customer service.
2) Supply chains involve the constant flow of information, products, and funds between different stages as items move from suppliers to manufacturers to distributors and finally to customers.
3) The objective of a supply chain is to maximize overall value, which is revenue generated from customers minus the total costs across the entire supply chain.
1) The document discusses achieving strategic fit and scope in supply chain management. It describes understanding customer demand uncertainty and supply uncertainty to determine the appropriate supply chain strategy.
2) A supply chain can be designed for efficiency or responsiveness depending on the level of uncertainty. The strategies for efficient and responsive supply chains are compared.
3) As products move through their life cycle, demand and supply uncertainty changes which impacts the optimal supply chain strategy. The strategy may shift from responsive early on to more efficient as the product matures.
Scm 03 distribution channel in supply chainshivaniradhu
The document discusses different design options for distribution networks in a supply chain. It describes six distribution network designs: 1) manufacturer storage with direct shipping, 2) manufacturer storage with direct shipping and in-transit merge, 3) distributor storage with package carrier delivery, 4) distributor storage with last mile delivery, 5) manufacturer/distributor storage with customer pickup, and 6) retail storage with customer pickup. For each design, it analyzes factors like costs, customer service, inventory levels, and transportation needs. It also provides a comparative analysis of how each design performs based on different product and customer characteristics.
This document discusses Group Technology (GT) and Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems (CIMS). It describes GT as a philosophy that recognizes and exploits similarities in activities, tasks, and problem solving. Parts are classified based on design and manufacturing attributes. Classification approaches include visual inspection and coding methods like monocode, polycode, and mixed codes. Benefits of GT include improvements to engineering design, layout planning, process planning, production control, quality control, purchasing, and customer service.
This document discusses the doctrine of separation of powers in India, the United States, and England. It provides an overview of the origins of the doctrine in the writings of Aristotle, Locke, and Montesquieu. In India, while the constitution does not strictly adhere to separation of powers, it envisions a broad division between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Several Supreme Court rulings have interpreted the doctrine. The US constitution is based on separation of powers between the three branches, but also incorporates checks and balances so they can check each other.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case from 1965 regarding a dispute over trademark registration and infringement. The respondent firm Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories registered trademarks containing the word "Navaratna" for medicinal products. The appellant also used the word "Navaratna" in trademarks for similar products. The lower courts found that while "Navaratna" was descriptive and could not be exclusively claimed, the full trademark "Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories" was valid due to long use and acquired distinctiveness. The appellant appealed, arguing the descriptive nature of "Navaratna" meant the full trademark also could not be validly registered or claimed exclusively. The Supreme Court considered the relevant trademark law
1) This document discusses a case between Naunaina Phaimauuucal and Nauyata regarding the use of similar trade names and products.
2) The High Court dismissed the appeal by Naunaina against the order of the lower court allowing the use of similar names and products by Nauyata.
3) The High Court found that Nauyata had been using the name and producing the products in question since the 1920s, prior to Naunaina, and there was no dispute over ownership or infringement of trademark.
Separation of powers_and_checks_and_balances judicial branch 2017shivaniradhu
The document discusses several principles of the US Constitution including separation of powers, checks and balances, and the roles of the three branches of government. It explains that separation of powers divides the government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, giving each separate powers. Checks and balances allows each branch to limit the powers of the other branches to prevent any one from becoming too powerful.
Explore Treydora's VR economy, where users can trade virtual assets, earn rewards, and build digital wealth within immersive game environments. Learn more!
Jason Kozup is a versatile figure whose impact spans numerous sectors. From the realms of entertainment and security, he has thrived as a producer, actor, stuntman, model, and aerospace defense contractor, showcasing excellence across the board.
The Midnight Sculptor.pdf writer by Ali alsiadali345alghlay
The city of Ravens burg was known for its gothic architecture, fog-covered streets, and an eerie silence that seemed to hang over the town like a shroud.
Sara Saffari: Turning Underweight into Fitness Success at 23get joys
Uncover the remarkable journey of Sara Saffari, whose transformation from underweight struggles to being recognized as a fitness icon at 23 underscores the importance of perseverance, discipline, and embracing a healthy lifestyle.
Unlocking the Secrets of IPTV App Development_ A Comprehensive Guide.pdfWHMCS Smarters
With IPTV apps, you can access and stream live TV, on-demand movies, series, and other content you like online. Viewers have more flexibility and customization of content to watch. To develop the best IPTV app that functions, you must combine creative problem-solving skills and technical knowledge. This post will look into the details of IPTV app development, so keep reading to learn more.
Party Photo Booth Prop Trends to Unleash Your Inner StyleBirthday Galore
Are you planning an unforgettable event and looking for the best photo booth props to make it a memorable night? Party photo booth props have become essential to any celebration, allowing guests to capture priceless memories and express their personalities. Here, we'll explore the hottest party photo booth prop trends that will unleash your inner style and create a buzz-worthy experience with Birthday Galore!
For more details visit - birthdaygalore.com
Morgan Freeman is Jimi Hendrix: Unveiling the Intriguing Hypothesisgreendigital
In celebrity mysteries and urban legends. Few narratives capture the imagination as the hypothesis that Morgan Freeman is Jimi Hendrix. This fascinating theory posits that the iconic actor and the legendary guitarist are, in fact, the same person. While this might seem like a far-fetched notion at first glance. a deeper exploration reveals a rich tapestry of coincidences, speculative connections. and a surprising alignment of life events fueling this captivating hypothesis.
Follow us on: Pinterest
Introduction to the Hypothesis: Morgan Freeman is Jimi Hendrix
The idea that Morgan Freeman is Jimi Hendrix stems from a mix of historical anomalies, physical resemblances. and a penchant for myth-making that surrounds celebrities. While Jimi Hendrix's official death in 1970 is well-documented. some theorists suggest that Hendrix did not die but instead reinvented himself as Morgan Freeman. a man who would become one of Hollywood's most revered actors. This article aims to delve into the various aspects of this hypothesis. examining its origins, the supporting arguments. and the cultural impact of such a theory.
The Genesis of the Theory
Early Life Parallels
The hypothesis that Morgan Freeman is Jimi Hendrix begins by comparing their early lives. Jimi Hendrix, born Johnny Allen Hendrix in Seattle, Washington, on November 27, 1942. and Morgan Freeman, born on June 1, 1937, in Memphis, Tennessee, have lived very different lives. But, proponents of the theory suggest that the five-year age difference is negligible and point to Freeman's late start in his acting career as evidence of a life lived before under a different identity.
The Disappearance and Reappearance
Jimi Hendrix's death in 1970 at the age of 27 is a well-documented event. But, theorists argue that Hendrix's death staged. and he reemerged as Morgan Freeman. They highlight Freeman's rise to prominence in the early 1970s. coinciding with Hendrix's supposed death. Freeman's first significant acting role came in 1971 on the children's television show "The Electric Company," a mere year after Hendrix's passing.
Physical Resemblances
Facial Structure and Features
One of the most compelling arguments for the hypothesis that Morgan Freeman is Jimi Hendrix lies in the physical resemblance between the two men. Analyzing photographs, proponents point out similarities in facial structure. particularly the cheekbones and jawline. Both men have a distinctive gap between their front teeth. which is rare and often highlighted as a critical point of similarity.
Voice and Mannerisms
Supporters of the theory also draw attention to the similarities in their voices. Jimi Hendrix known for his smooth, distinctive speaking voice. which, according to some, resembles Morgan Freeman's iconic, deep, and soothing voice. Additionally, both men share certain mannerisms. such as their calm demeanor and eloquent speech patterns.
Artistic Parallels
Musical and Acting Talents
Jimi Hendrix was regarded as one of t