-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
1/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
Kim Schumann, Esq., State Bar #170942Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esq., State Bar #151067Peter Cook, Esq., State Bar #232742SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone (714) 850-0210Facsimile (714) 850-0551Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant, ORLY TAITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI and PHILIP J. BERG,ESQUIRE and THE LAW OFFICES OFPHILIP J. BERG and EVELYN ADAMSa/k/a MOMMA E and LISA M.OSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBAL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a DR. ORLY TAITZ,a/k/a LAW OFFICES OF ORLY TAITZ;a/k/a WWW.ORLYTAITZESQ.COMa/k/a WWW.REPUBX.COM a/k/aORLY TAITZ, INC. and DEFEND OURFREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.and YOSEF TAITZ and THE SANKEYFIRM and SANKEY INVESTIGA-TIONS, INC. and NEIL SANKEY andJAMES SUNQUIST and ROCK SALTPUBLISHING and LINDA SUEBELCHER a/k/a LINDA S. BELCHERa/k/a LINDA STARR; a/k/aNEWWOMENSPARTY a/k/a
STITCHENWITCH a/k/a EVA BRAUNa/k/a WEB SERGEANT a/k/a KATYa/k/a WWW.OBAMACITIZENSHIPDEBATE.ORG and EDGAR HALEa/k/a JD SMITH; and CAREN HALE;and PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, a/k/aPLAINS RADIO NETWORK, INC.a/k/a PLAINS RADIO; and BAR HFARMS; and KPRN AM 1610; andDOES 1 through 200 Inclusive,
Defendants.
))))))))))))
))))))))))))
))))))))))))
Case No. 8:11-CV-00485-AG (AJW)Hon. Andrew GuilfordCourtroom 10D
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZSMOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDEDCOMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP12(b)(6)
Date Action Filed: May 4, 2009Discovery Cut-Off: March 5, 2012Final Pre-Trial Conf.: May 21, 2012Trial Date: June 5, 2012
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 33 Page ID#:6765
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
2/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-ii-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND/OR THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD:
COMES NOW, Defendant, ORLY TAITZ, and hereby submits this Motion
for Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures [FRCP], Rule12(b)(6), against Plaintiffs, LISA LIBERI, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, THE LAW
OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG and LISA M. OSTELLA , [hereinafter referred to
collectively as Plaintiffs] as the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the
following issues:
(1) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION for
INVASION OF PRIVACY UNDER THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION;
(2) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
for PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS;
(3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION for
FALSE LIGHT;
(4) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
for APPROPRIATION OF NAME, PHOTO AND LIKENESS;
(5) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION for
VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE 1798.53;
(6) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION for
VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE 1798.85;
(7) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONfor CYBER-STALKING, CYBER-HARASSMENT AND CYBER-
BULLYING;
(8) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
for DEFAMATION PER SE, SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SE;
///
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 33 Page ID#:6766
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
3/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-iii-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
(9) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION for
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(10) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION for
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; and(11) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for the ELEVENTH CAUSE OF
ACTION for ABUSE OF PROCESS.
In conformance with the Courts order dated June 14, 2011, on June 27,
2011, counsel for TAITZ requested leave to file a motion to dismiss based upon
FRCP 12(b)(6). On June 29, 2011, the Court granted TAITZs request for leave to
file a motion to dismiss based upon Rule 12(b)(6).
This Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP, Rule 12(b)(6) will be based upon
this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof,
the Court file concerning this matter, and all other tangible and/or testimonial
evidence provided at the hearing on this matter.
The hearing on this motion will take place on August 15, 2011 at 10:00 AM,
or as soon thereafter as before the Honorable Andrew Guilford of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, in
Courtroom 10D at the Spring Street Courthouse located 411 West Fourth Street,
Santa Ana, California 92701.
DATED: July 11, 2011 SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP
/s/ - Peter CookBy: ___________________________Kim Schumann, Esq.Peter Cook Esq.Attorneys for Defendant,ORLY TAITZ
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 3 of 33 Page ID#:6767
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
4/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-iv-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
Table of Contents
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4III. LEGAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. PLAINTIFFS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS AS
THERE IS NO PERSONAL RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, AND
FURTHER, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO
ADEQUATELY SPECIFY WHAT, IF ANY,
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY HAS
BEEN INVADED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. The U.S. Constitution Does Not Recognize the Right to
Sue a Private Individual under the First or Fourteenth
Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Plaintiff BERG, a Nationally Prolific Attorney Seeking
Pro Hac Vice Status, Has No Reasonable Expectation of
Privacy as to His Disciplinary Record . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Plaintiff OSTELLA Fails to Provide Allegations That
TAITZ Intruded on Her Reasonable Expectation of
Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Plaintiff LIBERI Fails to Assert any Reasonable
Expectation of Privacy Regarding Several of HerAlleged Privacy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. PLAINTIFFS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS AS
PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY
SPECIFY WHAT, IF ANY, PRIVATE FACTS HAVE
BEEN PUBLICIZED, AND HAVE FAILED TO
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 4 of 33 Page ID#:6768
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
5/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-v-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
ADEQUATELY ALLEGE THAT THEY ARE NOT
NEWSWORTHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. PLAINTIFFS SUPERFLUOUS THIRD CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR FALSE LIGHT FAILS AS PLAINTIFFSHAVE FAILED TO ALLEGE THAT TAITZ ACTUALLY
PUBLICIZED ANY FACTS LEADING TO THE
ALLEGED PORTRAYALS IN A FALSE LIGHT . . . . . . 10
D. PLAINTIFFS FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS AS
PLAINTIFFS DO NOT PROPERLY ALLEGE HOW
PRESENTATION OF FACTUAL NEWS-RELATED
INFORMATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS IS A
MISAPPROPRIATION OF THEIR LIKENESS . . . . . . . 12
E. PLAINTIFFS FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE 1798.53 FAILS IN
THAT THE FAC DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY
ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ALLEGED DISCLOSED
INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM A
GOVERNMENT AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
F. PLAINTIFFS SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE 1798.85 FAILS AS
THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT TAITZ EVER
ACTUALLY PUBLICLY POSTED THE SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER OF OSTELLA. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
151. OSTELLAs Social Security Number Has Never Been
Published by TAITZ Per the FACs Allegations . . . . 15
2. Plaintiffs Allegation for Damages Is Mistaken as Civ.
Code 179.84 does not apply to Civ. Code 1798.85
Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 5 of 33 Page ID#:6769
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
6/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-vi-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
3. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 Immunizes
TAITZ from Liability Arising out of Her Publication or
Re-Publication of Information Received from Another
Information Content Provider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15G. PLAINTIFFS SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS AS
THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EITHER
CYBER-HARASSMENT OR CYBER-
BULLYING,AND FURTHER, DOES NOT ALLEGE
THAT TAITZS CONDUCT AND ACTIONS INCLUDED
ANY CREDIBLE THREAD TO PLAINTIFFS SAFETY 17
H. PLAINTIFFS EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DEFAMATION PER SE, SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SE
FAILS DUE TO PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO
ADEQUATELY SPECIFY THE WHAT, WHO, WHERE,
AND HOW ANY SLANDER OR LIBEL WAS
DISSEMINATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
I. PLAINTIFFS NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS
FAILS DUE TO PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO ALLEGE
ACTIONS THAT ARE SUFFICIENTLY
OUTRAGEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
J. PLAINTIFFS TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION FAILS IN THATPLAINTIFFS CANNOT ALLEGE ANY INDEPENDENT
ACTION INITIATED BY TAITZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
K. PLAINTIFFS ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
ABUSE OF PROCESS FAILS AS PLAINTIFFS CANNOT
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 6 of 33 Page ID#:6770
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
7/33
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
8/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-viii-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
Table of Authorities
Cases
Adams v. Superior Court2 Cal.App.4th 521 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 22, 23
Aisenson v. American Broad Co.220 Cal.App.3d 146 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Barrett v. Rosenthal40 Cal.4th 33 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly550 U.S. 544 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 18
Briscoe v. Readers Digest Assn.4 Cal.3d 529 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.419 U.S. 245 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Cochran v. Cochran65 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21
Diaz v. Oakland Tribune, Inc.139 Cal.App.3d 118 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co.66 Cal.App.4th 478 (1998)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Eastwood v. Superior Court149 Cal.App.3d 409 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers74 Cal.App.4th 1359 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fellows v. National Enquirer42 Cal.3d 234 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
418 U.S. 323 (1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19Graehling v. Village of Lombard58 F.3d 295 (7th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Kapellas v. Kofman1 Cal.3d 20 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Kelly v. Johnson Publishing Co.160 Cal.App.2d 718 (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 8 of 33 Page ID#:6772
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
9/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-ix-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
Kinsey v. Macur107 Cal.App.3d 265 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11
Loomis v. Murphy217 Cal.App.3d 589 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23
Lugosi v. Universal Pictures25 Cal.3d 813 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.501 U.S. 496 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.46 Cal.3d 1092 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc.34 Cal.App.4th 790 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps
475 U.S. 767 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Porten v. University of San Francisco64 Cal.App.3d 825 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn457 U.S. 830 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc.859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Schmidt v. Foundation Health35 Cal.App.4th 1702 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19
Shelley v. Kraemer334 U.S. 1 (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.18 Cal.4th 200, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Transphase Sys. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.839 F.Supp. 711 (C.D. Cal. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
United States v. Drew259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
W. Mining Council v. Watt643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Woodcourt II, Ltd. v. McDonald Co.119 Cal.App.3d 245 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 9 of 33 Page ID#:6773
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
10/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-x-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
Statutes
Civil Code 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Civil Code 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Civil Code 1708.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Civil Code 1798.53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13, 14Civil Code 1798.83. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15Civil Code 1798.84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 17Civil Code 1798.85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Civil Code 1798.85(a)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Code of Civil Procedure 460 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Civil Code 3344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13Code of Civil Procedure 47(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 19
Other Authority
CACI 1520 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23CACI 1800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6CACI 1801 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8CACI 1802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Communications Decency Act (CDA)47 U.S.C. 230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial 9:221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Restatement (SECOND) of Torts46 cmt. d (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 10 of 33 Page ID#:6774
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
11/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-1-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant, ORLY TAITZ, is required to protect her rights with the
insurmountable task of filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) toaddress Plaintiffs 170-page First Amended Complaint [FAC], containing 423
paragraphs of allegations and eleven causes of action against Defendants (in reality,
15 causes of action, as Plaintiffs have included multiple causes of action under their
First, Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action) that pertain to specific and
individualized allegations relating to each of three Plaintiffs, LISA LIBERI,
PHILIP J. BERG and LISA M. OSTELLA, all within the 25-page limit under Local
Rule 7-5(a). In short, here we do the best that we can.
The crux of Plaintiffs FAC is based upon their allegations that TAITZ has,
in exercising her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and public
participation, concurrently violated the Plaintiffs rights by (1) invasion of their
right to privacy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and under the
California Constitution; (2) publicly disclosed Plaintiffs allegedly private facts; (3)
presenting each of the Plaintiffs in a false light; (4) misappropriating Plaintiffs
LIBERIs and OSTELLAs likenesses; (5) statutory invasion of privacy; (6) posting
LIBERIs social security numbers in violation of statute; (7) cyber-stalking the
Plaintiffs; (8) defamationper se, slander, as well as libelper se; (9) intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (10) malicious prosecution; and (11) abuse of
process.
The sizzle that started this fire stems from two separate instances: (1)TAITZs attempt to publish public records regarding LIBERIs criminal history
(particularly under San Bernardino County Criminal Case No. FWV028000 for
LIBERIs violations in 2001, and Case No. FSB044914 for her violations in 2002);
and (2) TAITZs expression that her former webmaster, OSTELLA, took away
control of the websites DefendOurFreedoms.net, DefendOurFreedoms.org and
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 11 of 33 Page ID#:6775
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
12/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-2-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
DefendOurFreedoms.us, all websites that were created for the purpose of
promoting TAITZs non-profit organization, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation,
Inc., and began solicit donations to OSTELLA personally under the Defend Our
Freedoms banner. Both LIBERI and OSTELLA took issue to TAITZs decision toair out this dirty laundry in public, and it appears that BERG took issue because of
the implication by association that his employee, LIBERI, was a convicted forger.
Although TAITZ is not addressing this matter under the California Anti-
SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, it is clear that
TAITZs actions all fall under the purview of the statutes protections, and that
Plaintiffs FAC is an attempt to clamp down on TAITZs ability to exercise her
rights to freedom of speech and public participation. This Motion to Dismiss,
however, is predicated upon the fact that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
any of their causes of action under FRCP 12(b)(6) as a result of vague and
conclusory allegations, thereby failing to assert the proper elements necessary to
assert each cause of action, as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs First Cause of Action fails as there is there is no personal
right of action under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and further
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately specify what, if any, privacy has
been invaded; and if so, how such privacy has been invaded;
(2) Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action fails as Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately specify what, if any, private facts have been publicized, and
have failed to adequately allege that they are not newsworthy;
(3) Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action fails as Plaintiffs have failed to allegeprecisely what TAITZ has publicly stated that has lead to any alleged
false depiction of Plaintiffs;
(4) Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action fails as Plaintiffs do not properly
allege how presentation of factual news-related information regarding
Plaintiffs is a misappropriation of their likeness;
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 12 of 33 Page ID#:6776
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
13/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-3-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
(5) Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action fails in that it does not provide any
allegations that the alleged disclosed information was obtained from a
government agency;
(6) Plaintiffs Sixth Cause of Action fails as there is no allegation thatTAITZ ever actually publicly posted any social security number of
Plaintiffs;
(7) Plaintiffs Seventh Cause of Action fails as there is no cause of action
for either Cyber-Harassment or Cyber-Bullying, and further, does
not allege that TAITZs conduct and actions included any credible
threat to Plaintiffs safety;
(8) Plaintiffs Eighth cause of action for Defamationper se, Slander and
Libelper se fails due to Plaintiffs failure to adequately specify the
what, who, where and how any slander or libel was disseminated, and
fails to address TAITZs free speech and public participation rights;
(9) Plaintiffs Ninth cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress fails due to Plaintiffs failure to allege actions that are
sufficiently outrageous;
(10) Plaintiffs Tenth cause of action for Malicious Prosecution fails in that
Plaintiffs cannot allege any independent action initiated by TAITZ;
and
(11) Plaintiffs Eleventh cause of action for Abuse of Process fails, as
Plaintiffs cannot identify any process that has taken place as a result of
TAITZs alleged actions.As a result of the insufficient pleadings, Plaintiffs FAC, and its causes of
action related to Defendant, ORLY TAITZ, fail in their entirety. For these reasons,
as explained as best as possible below given the page-limitation restraints under
Local Rule 7-5, Plaintiffs FAC as to TAITZ should be dismissed in its entirety
without leave to amend.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 13 of 33 Page ID#:6777
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
14/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-4-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint is properly dismissed under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when there
is an absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Even though the Courtmust assume that the allegations in a complaint are true in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
the Court does not need to accept as true conclusory allegations ... or unreasonable
inferences. Transphase Sys. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 839 F. Supp. 711, 718
(C.D. Cal. 1993) (citing Schwarzer, Tashima, and Wagstaffe, FEDERAL CIVIL
PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL, 9:221 at page 9-41). While the legal standard is
quite liberal ... more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions is necessary
to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. [Emphasis added] Scheid v.
Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988). A court need
not accept as true unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the
form of factual allegations. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001); W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
Although a lawsuit should not be dismissed if it is possible to hypothesize facts, a
complaint must still allege enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its
face. Graehling v. Village of Lombard, 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7th Cir. 1995); Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When this standard has not
been met, the case must be dismissed. Bell Atlantic Corp., supra.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. PLAINTIFFS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS AS THERE IS
NO PERSONAL RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER THE FIRST ANDFOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, AND FURTHER, PLAINTIFFS
HAVE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SPECIFY WHAT, IF ANY,
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY HAS BEEN INVADED
Under California law, an invasion of privacy occurs where one intentionally
intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude, seclusion, private affairs, or
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 14 of 33 Page ID#:6778
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
15/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-5-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
concerns of another, in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person. Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200, 231, 74 Cal. Rptr.
2d 843 (1998). In order to properly allege a cause of action for invasion of privacy,
five elements must be alleged: (1) that the Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation ofprivacy in the areas that has been allegedly intruded upon; (2) an intentional
intrusion into this area by the Defendant; (3) that the intrusion would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person; (4) Plaintiffs were harmed; and (5) that the
intrusion was a substantial factor in causing the harm. California Civil Jury
Instructions (CACI) 1800. In this instance, each of the three Plaintiffs have failed
to allege facts showing that TAITZ intruded upon their reasonable expectation of
privacy. Further, Plaintiffs have no ability to sue TAITZ, a private individual, under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
1. The U.S. Constitution Does Not Recognize the Right to Sue a Private
Individual under the First or Fourteenth Amendments
Plaintiffs claims for Invasion of Privacy under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution against TAITZ have no legal basis. The
Fourteenth Amendment cannot apply to private conduct, however discriminatory
or wrongful. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948). By extension, the First
Amendment does not apply to private conduct either. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457
U.S. 830, 837 (1982). Any inference that TAITZ, a self-proclaimed dissident, is
perpetrating a state action in this action is quite a stretch, and such Constitutional
claims should be dismissed.
2. Plaintiff BERG, a Nationally Prolific Attorney Seeking Pro Hac ViceStatus, Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy as to His Disciplinary
Record
In determining whether Plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy,
this court may consider (a) the identity of the Defendant; (b) the extent to which
other persons had access to the allegedly private information; (c) The means by
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 15 of 33 Page ID#:6779
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
16/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-6-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
which the intrusion occurred. CACI 1800. In this matter, TAITZ is an attorney and
party in a lawsuit. In order to be admitted pro hac vice, an attorney must be in good
standing in their home state. In this case, TAITZ had the right to investigate
BERGs standing as he applied for pro hac vice, as alleged in the FAC, in litigationconcerning both attorneys. The information regarding BERGs disciplinary record is
contemplated under California Civil Code 47(b), which identifies such
information as privileged in a litigation context.
Further, BERGs disciplinary status with the Pennsylvania State Bar is a
matter of public record, accessible by the public via the Internet. The documents
that are part of these publicized proceedings are by definition accessible by BERG,
the filer of any paperwork, and the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. There is no
reasonable expectation of privacy for BERG in this situation; as such, BERGs
claim should be dismissed.
3. Plaintiff OSTELLA Fails to Provide Allegations that TAITZ Intruded
on Her Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Plaintiff OSTELLAs only specific allegation regarding her alleged invasion
of privacy pertains to an expectation of privacy pertaining to her adoption records.
(FAC 195.) There are no allegations regarding how TAITZ invaded this alleged
expectation of privacy. OSTELLAs adoption issue may be related to the allegation
that OSTELLA was mysteriously contacted by a woman claiming to be her
biological mother. (FAC 102.) OSTELLA has made no, and cannot make any,
allegation that satisfies the second element of the cause of action for Invasion of
Privacy, as there is no legally cognizable connection between TAITZ and thismysterious woman. Rather, OSTELLAs cause of action rests on pure speculation,
as is evident on the face of the FAC. Without any allegation that TAITZ invaded
OSTELLAs privacy, OSTELLAs claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
///
///
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 16 of 33 Page ID#:6780
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
17/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-7-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
4. Plaintiff LIBERI Fails to Assert any Reasonable Expectation of
Privacy Regarding Several of Her Alleged Privacy Issues
Plaintiff LIBERI makes several meritless assertions that her reasonable
expectation of privacy has been intruded upon by TAITZ, including that LIBERIsprobation information was discovered by TAITZ (FAC 192); that LIBERIs
sisters death was discovered by TAITZ (FAC 193); and that LIBERIs address
was allegedly discovered by TAITZ (FAC 190-191). LIBERI has no reasonable
expectation of privacy for any of these issues.
As to the probation, as a convicted criminal, LIBERI should understand that
many of her civil rights, as related to probation, have been voluntarily waived by
her; this both includes rights to privacy and Fourth Amendment rights, as it pertains
to her probation. The fact that TAITZ may have learned public information
regarding LIBERIs criminal charges and subsequent probation does not invade a
probationers reasonable expectation of privacy.
As to LIBERIs sisters death, and LIBERIs address, both are a matter of
public record. As previously noted, LIBERIs privacy, as a person on probation, is
limited; this includes a limitation on the privacy of where LIBERI resides, as the
criminal courts and probation department must have knowledge of LIBERIs
residence at all times. Similarly, the death of any person, including LIBERIs sister,
is a matter of public records.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs include several non-specific and conclusory
allegations of privacy intruded upon that fail to specifically identify what, if any,
private information was intruded upon by TAITZ. The conclusory allegations allegethat TAITZ took part in illegally accessing, disclosing and distributing Plaintiffs
privileged and private credit reports, financial data, primary identifying information,
and other confidential information, confidential disciplinary documents,
photographs, sealed case information, etc. (FAC 197), and does not satisfy the
pleading requirements necessary to assert the Invasion of Privacy cause of action. In
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 17 of 33 Page ID#:6781
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
18/33
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
19/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-9-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
Paragraph 207 identifies a number of areas in which the Plaintiffs have an
alleged reasonable expectation of privacy. Paragraph 208 states that the Defendants
have disclosed private facts without identifying what those private facts are, and
declares them to not be newsworthy. Finally, Paragraph 209 provides a compendiumof generic private facts that Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants disclosed: credit
report, financial data, primary identifying information, photographs [sic], sealed
case information, disciplinary documents, etc.
As held in Porton, the disclosure of private facts must be a public disclosure
and not a private one. There must be, in other words, publicity in the sense of
communication to the public in general or to a large number of persons, as
distinguished from one individual or a few. Porten, supra, 64 Cal. App. 3d at 828.
Plaintiffs identify a number of categories of private facts that have been allegedly
disclosed by TAITZ, but not one actual private fact. Additionally, Plaintiffs have
failed to allege a public disclosure of these unidentified private facts.
The cause of action, on its face, fails each of its elements. Not only are the
private facts allegedly disclosed left in obscurity, but to whom they were disclosed
is not alleged. Without these two elements, it is impossible to determine whether, on
its face, these alleged generic facts are highly objectionable, or if they fit a
newsworthy purpose. As noted in the previous cause of action, matters of public
record are not private facts. Kapellas v. Kofman, 1 Cal. 3d 20, 38 (1969). Case
information, disciplinary documents, even primary identifying information and
financial data may all be matters of public record.
The Second Cause of Action for Public Disclosure of Private Facts fails inthat it does not allege facts necessary to support the elements on the claim of relief.
With such uncertainty on its face, this Cause of Action should be dismissed.
///
///
///
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 19 of 33 Page ID#:6783
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
20/33
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
21/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-11-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
portray LIBERI as a lifelong document forger, a perjure [sic], a person with current
criminal charges pending against her, etc. LIBERI, however, fails to identify what,
if any, of the statements are that caused this alleged negative portrayal. In other
words, the conclusory portrayal is alleged, but not the actual statements that led tothat portrayal.
The tort of False light must be accompanied by publicity in the sense of an
actual communication to the public in general. Kinsey v. Macur, 107 Cal. App. 3d
265, 290 (1980). As such, Plaintiffs must actually allege what it is that TAITZ
allegedly communicated that led to the false portrayals. For instance, in Cantrell v.
Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245 (1974), a newspaper printed a depiction of
a family as living in a dilapidated home, which portrayed the family as abjectly
poor.Id. at 247. In this case, however, it is through unspecified false, misleading
and defamatory statements that TAITZ has allegedly created the alleged portrayal
of LIBERI.
The same can be said of Paragraph 218 of the FAC, as the same mysterious
false, misleading and defamatory statements appear to now portray OSTELLA as
a thief, a hacker, of stealing, of having a criminal record, among other things.
And in Paragraph 219, the same false, misleading and defamatory statements
portray BERG as dishonest, a thief, of forging court documents in this case.
Plaintiffs must allege what these false, misleading and defamatory statements are in
order to state a claim for False Light.
The only concrete allegations of statements made by TAITZ are in Paragraph
217, where Plaintiffs allege that TAITZ stated that LIBERI is a career forger; acareer document forger; a thief; that Liberi was convicted of forgery; that Liberi
was convicted of multiple forgeries. This again falls afoul of the first element, as
there is no indication that these alleged statements by TAITZ were ever made to the
public in general. Furthermore, LIBERIs criminal convictions for forgery are a
matter of public record, of which this Court may take judicial notice.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 21 of 33 Page ID#:6785
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
22/33
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
23/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-13-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
OSTELLA continues to operate and profit from the websites
DefendOurFreedoms.net and DefendOurFreedoms.org, cribbing the identity of
TAITZs non-profit corporation, Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.)
LIBERI and OSTELLA go on to allege that TAITZ made in excess of$100,000 by virtue of using their names, and also that they were not compensated
for the use of their likeness on TAITZs blog. (FAC 228, 232.) The cause of
action makes more sense when it involves Clint Eastwood suing for use of his
image in selling magazines. Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 417
(1995). It makes less sense when it involves a paralegal (LIBERI) and a webmaster
(OSTELLA) who do not have a livelihood based on their public persona.
LIBERI and OSTELLA have failed to, and are unable, to assert causes of
action under the common law right of publicity, and misappropriation of likeness
under Civil Code 3344. As such, Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action should be
dismissed in its entirety, without leave to amend.
E. PLAINTIFFS FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION
OF CAL. CIV. CODE 1798.53 FAILS IN THAT THE FAC DOES NOT
PROVIDE ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ALLEGED DISCLOSED
INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM A GOVERNMENT AGENCY
California Civil Code 1798.53 provides, in pertinent part: Any person
who intentionally discloses information, not otherwise public, which they know or
should reasonably know was obtained from personal information maintained by a
state agency or from records within a system of records maintained by a
federal government agency, shall be subject to a civil actionThe complaint is devoid of any disclosure by TAITZ of information relating
to OSTELLA which was obtained from personal information maintained by a state
or federal government agency. The information that OSTELLA appears to claim a
privacy right to is in her credit, financial, primary identification, and other private
data. (FAC 241.) The complaint then concludes, without any facts to support the
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 23 of 33 Page ID#:6787
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
24/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-14-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
conclusion, that Defendants violated Plaintiffs LIBERI and OSTELLAS privacy
rights and Cal. Civ. Code 1798.53 by intentionally illegally accessing, disclosing
and distributing their privileged credit reports, financial data, primary identifying
information, and other confidential information which Defendants knew orshould have known was obtained from personal information maintained by State
and Federal agencies, to unauthorized third parties. (FAC 243.) As it relates to
alleged confidential information belonging to OSTELLA, despite being 172 pages
in length, the FAC makes no mention of how TAITZ obtained credit reports,
financial data, and other confidential information about OSTELLA and, more
importantly, is silent as to how TAITZ allegedly disclosed that information to third
parties. In fact, Plaintiffs own allegations contradict Defendants conclusory
allegation regarding the origin of the information that TAITZ allegedly obtained
and disclosed.
In paragraph 68 of the FAC, Plaintiffs adopted TAITZS alleged web posting
that the information she was obtaining came from databases: LexisNexis and
Choicepoint. (FAC 68.) Additionally, Plaintiffs admit that Neil Sankey first
circulated the article which claimed that LIBERI had an extensive criminal record
going back to the 1990s (FAC 63) and that it was Sankey who provided TAITZ
with an e-mail containing LIBERIS social security numbers, her husbands name,
date of birth, maiden name, and residence (FAC 69). As such, there is no allegation
that any private information was gleaned from governmental agencies; quite the
opposite, the allegations indicate that the private information, if any was obtained,
were through private corporations and individuals. As such, Plaintiffs cause ofaction for violation of Civil Code 1798.53 fails, and should be dismissed in its
entirety.
///
///
///
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 24 of 33 Page ID#:6788
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
25/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-15-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
F. PLAINTIFFS SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION
OF CAL. CIV. CODE 1798.85 FAILS AS THERE IS NO ALLEGATION
THAT TAITZ EVER ACTUALLY PUBLICLY POSTED THE SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER OF OSTELLA1. OSTELLAs Social Security Number Has Never Been Published by
TAITZ Per the FACs Allegations
California Civil Code 1798.85(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part that a person
may not Publicly post or publicly display in any manner an individuals social
security number. Plaintiffs FAC, however, is devoid of any factual allegation that
TAITZ publicly posted or displayed OSTELLAs social security number. As such,
this cause of action, as to Plaintiff OSTELLA, should be dismissed in its entirety,
without leave to amend.
2. Plaintiffs Allegation for Damages Is Mistaken as Civ. Code
1798.84 does not apply to Civ. Code 1798.85 Violations
Also, Plaintiffs alleged remedy under Section 1798.85 is mistaken and
invalid. In Plaintiffs FAC, Plaintiffs assert that TAITZ, a private individual, may be
subject to a $3,000 fine per violation of the statute per Civ. Code 1798.84. This is
incorrect, as Section 1798.84 specifically only applies to violations of Civ. Code
1798.83 as follows:
In addition, for a willful, intentional, or reckless violation ofSection 1798.83, a customer may recover a civil penalty not toexceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) per violation; otherwise,the customer may recover a civil penalty of up to five hundreddollars ($500) per violation for a violation of Section 1798.83.
This language is conveniently edited out of Plaintiffs FAC.3. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 Immunizes TAITZ from
Liability Arising out of Her Publication or Re-publication of Information
Received from Another Information Content Provider
Additionally, pursuant to the allegations in the FAC alone are sufficient to
establish statutory immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). 47
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 25 of 33 Page ID#:6789
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
26/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-16-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
U.S.C. 230. Plaintiffs FAC alleges that Neil Sankey first circulated the article
which claimed that LIBERI had an extensive criminal record going back to the
1990s (FAC 63), and that it was Sankey who provided TAITZ with an e-mail
containing LIBERIs social security numbers, her husbands name, date of birth,maiden name, and residence (FAC 69). Plaintiffs allege in the FAC that the
information she (Taitz) was obtaining came from databases: LexisNexis and
Choicepoint (FAC 68) and further allege that Defendant Orly Taitz already had
Liberi and Ostellas private data from the Reed Defendants and Defendant Intelius,
Inc. (FAC 70).
Under the CDA, TAITZ, as a user of an interactive computer service, cannot
be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another
information content provider such as LexisNexis, Inltelius and Choicepoint. The
CDA provides in relevant part that: [n]o provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider. 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) Further,
the CDA states that No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be
imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. 46
U.S.C. 230(e)(3).
This matter is similar to Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006). In Barrett,
plaintiffs operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds. The defendant
operated an internet discussion group. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant
committed libel by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and
Internet postings by republishing various messages even after plaintiffs warned thatthey were false and defamatory. The California Supreme Court held that defendant
was, in fact, protected from liability under the circumstances under the CDA. Barrett
held that Section 230 of the CDA exempts internet intermediaries from defamation
liability for republication. Barrett, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 63. As such, the CDA
immunizes TAITZ, whose alleged republishing of the social security number was,
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 26 of 33 Page ID#:6790
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
27/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-17-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
like Barrett, from other sources, such as LexisNexis and Choicepoint, and Sankey.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs cause of action under Civil Code 1798.84 fails to
state a claim of relief, and should be dismissed.
G. PLAINTIFFS SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS ASTHERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EITHER CYBER-
HARASSMENT OR CYBER-BULLYING, AND FURTHER, DOES NOT
ALLEGE THAT TAITZS CONDUCT AND ACTIONS INCLUDED ANY
CREDIBLE THREAT TO PLAINTIFFS SAFETY
Plaintiffs Seventh Cause of Action alleges three causes of action, two of
which have no basis for relief under California law: Cyber-Harassment and
Cyber-Bullying. See generally, United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal.
2009). The final tort of Cyber-Stalking is cognizable to the extent that it is merely
an allegation of the California tort of stalking, codified under California Civil Code
1708.7. In order to establish the tort of stalking, Plaintiffs must allege the
following four elements: (1) that TAITZ engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent
of which was to follow, alarm, or harass them; (2) that, as a result of the alleged
pattern of conduct, Plaintiffs reasonably feared for their safety, or that of an
immediate family member; (3) that part of the alleged pattern of conduct was a
credible threat with the intention of placing the Plaintiffs in reasonable fear for their
safety, or that of an immediate family member; and (4) on at least one occasion, the
Plaintiffs clearly and definitively, but unsuccessfully, demanded that the defendant
stop that pattern of conduct. Cal. Civ. Code 1708.7.
Pursuant to the allegations in Plaintiffs FAC, neither OSTELLA nor LIBERIcan meet either the first or third elements of a claim for stalking. Plaintiffs have
failed to sufficiently allege that TAITZs intention was ever to follow, alarm, or
harass OSTELLA and LIBERI.
Moreover, the FAC is bare when it comes to credible threats allegedly
made by TAITZ against LIBERI and OSTELLA. The only threats made by TAITZ
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 27 of 33 Page ID#:6791
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
28/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-18-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
alleged by Plaintiffs were contained in Paragraph 275 of the FAC where they claim
that Taitz openly threatened to destroy Liberi and get rid of her; Taitz threatened to
have Liberis children professionally kidnapped; Taitz has called for the political
purging of Liberi and Ostella. None of these threats, standing alone, are sufficientcredible threats under the circumstances.
To establish a credible threat, the allegations must be supported with
independent corroborating evidence such that the (f)actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that
all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). In short, it
must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that isplausible on its face. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556557, 570 (2007) (parentheses in
original; emphasis added).
TAITZs alleged uttering that she would destroy or get rid of LIBERI are
not threats of violence per se, and sound like nothing more than posturing. Further,
the allegation that some unspecified supporter of TAITZ informed OSTELLA that
she her children would be professionally kidnapped is farcical and should be
disregarded; even if true that a person made this statement, there is no credible link
to TAITZ.
There are insufficient allegations, much less credible allegations, that give
any credence to any actual credible threat from TAITZ. With conclusory allegations
that provide no more than speculation, this cause of action should be dismissed in
its entirety without leave to amend.
H. PLAINTIFFS EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FORDEFAMATION PER SE, SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SE FAILS DUE TO
PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY SPECIFY THE WHAT, WHO,
WHERE AND HOW ANY SLANDER OR LIBEL WAS DISSEMINATED
A cause of action for Defamation is supported upon the following five
elements: (1) a false statement of fact (Schmidt v. Foundation Health, 35 Cal. App.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 28 of 33 Page ID#:6792
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
29/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-19-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
4th 1702, 1716 (1995)); (2) published (California Civil Code 45, 46); (3) of or
concerning the plaintiff(California Code of Civil Procedure460; Kelly v. Johnson
Publishing Co., 160 Cal.App.2d 718(1958)); (4) causing injury to the plaintiffs
reputation (Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991) ; and(5) malice (Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 773-75 (1986)) or fault (Gertz
v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347, 349 (1974)).
Although Plaintiffs have attempted to identify a number of defamatory
statements allegedly made by TAITZ, Plaintiffs have failed to properly enumerate
details necessary regarding each statement to create a cognizable claim under FRCP
12(b)(6). As with the Third Cause of Action for False Light, Plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy the first element of a claim of defamation: identifying what, if any,
statements TAITZ actually made that are allegedly defamatory. Instead, Plaintiffs
allege how TAITZ has portrayed each of the three Plaintiffs: as for LIBERI, she is
merely portrayed as a lifelong document forger, a perjure [sic], a person with
current criminal charges pending against her, and a number of other portrayals.
(FAC 285.) This subjective and improperly conclusive observation by LIBERI
does not, and cannot, establish a cause of action of defamation.
The cause of action for defamation requires an allegation of actual false
statements of fact made by TAITZ, not interpreted portrayals by the Plaintiffs.
Similarly, Plaintiff OSTELLA is merely subjectively portrayed as a thief, a
hacker, of stealing, having a long criminal record, etc. (FAC 286); and Plaintiff
BERG is merely subjectively portrayed as dishonest, a thief, of forging court
documents in this case of perjury, etc. (FAC 287). This cause of action is devoidof allegations of TAITZs false statements of fact that actually give rise to this cause
of action for defamation. For this reason, Plaintiffs cause of action for Defamation
Per Se, Slander and Liber Per Se fails to assert a cause of action under FRCP
12(b)(6), and as such, should be dismissed, without leave to amend.
///
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 29 of 33 Page ID#:6793
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
30/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-20-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
I. PLAINTIFFS NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FAILS DUE TO
PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO ALLEGE ACTIONS THAT ARE
SUFFICIENTLY OUTRAGEOUSPlaintiffs cause of action for IIED is based entirely upon the prior causes of
action, meaning that the IIED cause of action as to TAITZ is completely reliant
upon TAITZs alleged invasion of privacy, disclosure of private facts, placing
Plaintiffs in a false light, defaming Plaintiffs, maliciously prosecuting LIBERI, and
cyber-stalking. The mere allegation that a defendant has acted tortiously, however,
is not enough to establish a cause of action for IIED. The Court in Cochran v.
Cochran, 65 Cal. App. 4th 488, 496 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1998), citing RESTATEMENT
(SECOND)TORTS 46 cmt. d (1965) stated:
In evaluating whether the defendants conduct was outrageous, itis not...enough that the defendant has acted with an intentwhich is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended toinflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has beencharacterized by malice, or a degree of aggravation which wouldentitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liabilityhas been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous incharacter, and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possiblebounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterlyintolerable in a civilized community. [Emphasis added.]
Additionally, Cochran, supra, 65 Cal. App.4th at 497 was unequivocally clear
on this subject topic, that typical hostile unpleasantries are not actionable:
...feuds are often accompanied by an exchange of hostileunpleasantries which are intended to sting whoever sits at thedelivery end. While the pain inflicted might be real, the tort ofintentional infliction of emotional distress was never intended
to remove all such barbs. To hold otherwise would needlesslycongest our Courts with trials for hurts both real andimagined which are best resolved elsewhere. [Emphasisadded.]
The tortious conduct alleged does not rise to the level of being beyond all
possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable
in a civilized community as required under the RESTATEMENT (SECOND)TORTS
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 30 of 33 Page ID#:6794
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
31/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-21-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
46 and California law. See Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 1122
(1988). The ongoing dispute between Plaintiffs and TAITZ is merely part of the
unpleasantries incidental thereto. Even if the TAITZs alleged tortious conduct
was intended to sting Plaintiffs, it simply does not rise to the level of a cause ofaction for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress under Cochran. See Cochran,
supra 65 Cal. App.4th at 497.Plaintiffs are already entitled to recovery under each
of the alleged torts of which they have accused TAITZ; the IIED cause of action
overstates Plaintiffs claims, and is duplicative of relief already provided for.
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately state a cause of action for Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress, and as such, it should be dismissed without leave to amend.
J. PLAINTIFFS TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION FAILS IN THAT PLAINTIFFS CANNOT ALLEGE ANY
INDEPENDENT ACTION INITIATED BY TAITZ
LIBERIs malicious prosecution cause of action is entirely based upon
Defendants filing of a Motion for Emergency Revocation of Probation against
LIBERI in San Bernardino County Superior Court. (FAC 316) The malicious
prosecution cause of action is based upon a motion that LIBERI alleges was
wrongfully filed by TAITZ.
The commission of the tort of malicious prosecution requires a showing of an
unsuccessful prosecution of a criminal or civil action, which any reasonable
attorney would regard as totally and completely without merit, for the intentionally
wrongful purpose of injuring another person. Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co., 66
Cal. App. 4th 478, 499 (1998). Malicious prosecution actions require the initiationof an actual full-blown action. As such, subsidiary procedural actions within a
lawsuit, such as an application for a restraining order, does not support a claim for
malicious prosecution. Adams v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 521, 528 (1992).
As such, it is clear that TAITZs alleged motion for revocation of probation in
///
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 31 of 33 Page ID#:6795
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
32/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
-22-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6)
LIBERIs criminal case was not an independent action under the purview of this
cause of action.
In Adams, the defendants were being sued by Plaintiff Vu alleging four
causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Vus lawsuit wasbased on the premise that the attorneys acted tortiously when they attempted to
intervene in criminal cases in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, where Vu was
attempted to have felony convictions reduced or expunged, which was granted.
After both courts granted reduced or expunged the felony charges, defendants filed
motions for reconsideration, seeking to bring to the attention of the respective courts
Vus alleged conduct in a fraudulent real estate sale. Both the San Mateo County
Superior Court and the Santa Clara County Superior Court denied the defendants
motions. Held, that the tort of malicious prosecution requires the initiation of a
full-blown action as well as its favorable termination for the malicious prosecution
plaintiff, neither of which occurred.Id. at 528.
This case is just like Adams, where there is neither a full-blown action
initiated by TAITZ or a favorable outcome. Because the prior action element of a
cause of action for malicious prosecution has not been alleged, Plaintiffs have failed
to state any facts on which this cause of action may be based.
K. PLAINTIFFS ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABUSE
OF PROCESS FAILS AS PLAINTIFFS CANNOT IDENTIFY ANY
PROCESS THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AS A RESULT OF TAITZS
ALLEGED ACTIONS
LIBERIS abuse of process cause of action is again entirely based uponDefendants filing of a Motion for an Emergency Revocation of Probation with
regard to LIBERIs probation in San Bernardino County Superior Court, which
LIBERI alleges was wrongfully filed by TAITZ. (FAC 327.)
In order to state a claim for abuse of process, LIBERI must establish a
substantial use or misuse of a legal process. Loomis v. Murphy, 217 Cal.App.3d
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 32 of 33 Page ID#:6796
-
8/6/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 280.0 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) file
33/33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
589, 595 (1990). An abuse of process is an act done in the name of the court and
under its authority by use of a legal process for the purpose of perpetrating an
injustice. CACI 1520; Woodcourt II, Ltd. v. McDonald Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 245,
252 (1981). The Court of Appeal in Adams v. Superior Court, supra, held that oneof the bases for sustaining defendants demurrer to Vus complaint for abuse of
process was because the motions filed in the criminal cases were denied, and thus
did not result in any order or process which could be misused by the defendants
was not sufficient to support plaintiffs abuse of process claim. Adams, supra, 2
Cal.App.4th at 532.
The same holding and reasoning should apply here. Assuming all of
Plaintiffs allegations to be true, because Plaintiffs admitted that Judge Sabet denied
the motions (FAC 316), LIBERI has failed to present any facts to support her cause
of action for abuse of process since, as a matter of law, no process was either
issued or misused by TAITZ.
IV. CONCLUSION
As a result of the insufficient pleadings, Plaintiffs FAC, and its causes of
action related to Defendant, ORLY TAITZ, fail in their entirety. While the bulk of
the allegations directly implicate the Defendants rights to freedom of speech and
participation in the public process, and therefore subject to Anti-SLAPP, the eleven
causes of action against TAITZ and DOFF are wholly insufficiently pleaded. For
these reasons, as explained as best as possible below given the page-limitation
restraints under Local Rule 7-5, Plaintiffs FAC as to TAITZ and DOFF should be
dismissed in its entirety, without leave to amend.DATED: July 11, 2011 SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP
/s/-Peter CookBy: ___________________________Kim Schumann, Esq.Peter Cook Esq.Attorneys for Defendant,ORLY TAITZ
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 280 Filed 07/11/11 Page 33 of 33 Page ID#:6797