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
Statements made by SASH (and
characterized by SASH as "undisputed") in
its Motion for Summary Judgment
|
From Defendant's declaration:
Defendant would eliminate any
defamatory statement that
might find its shameful way onto
her website. It is only true
statements about matters of
public interest that Defendant
wishes to keep on her website.
6. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s statement 6,
which is a wildly inaccurate extrapolation of
Plaintiff’s own statements in RFAs 10 and 11.
Plaintiff’s original statements refer to very
specific conduct. The idea that SASH could
have engaged in “the exact same conduct as is
described in the order” in the Moser case is
preposterous on its face (the order is 83 pages
long), and Defendant would never say such a
thing. Defendant said that some, not all, of
the conduct of Lozano Smith in the Moser
case was the same as conduct of Plaintiff.
Defendant officially objected to RFAs 10 and
11. Objection 11 states:
“… The statement is worded in a manner
that could be misinterpreted. The truth is
that I searched the Moser v. Bret Harte Union
High School District decision for descriptions
of attorney behavior that accurately described
the behavior of Plaintiff’s attorneys, and then
stated that Stutz law firm attorneys had
engaged in those behaviors...”
Defendant’s Exhibit J
(Defendant’s responses to RFAs 10
and 11) is attached since Plaintiff's
Exhibit B has three pages missing,
pages 2, 3, and 4, which contain
responses 10 and 11.
Plaintiff’s Exhibit A
(Plaintiff’s RFAs 10 and 11);
|
Plaintiff’s own Exhibit “I,”
printout of the “Stutz Artiano
Shinoff & Holtz” webpage from
Defendant’s site (page 4, right
hand column). This Exhibit is also
Exhibit __ in the deposition of
Maura Larkins.
Exhibit B has three pages missing, pages 2, 3, and 4
Exhibit C fails to include errata and signature sheet, even though the pages chosen by Plaintiff
are referred to five times on the errata sheet, specifically pages 159, 161 (two errors), 165 and
198
I.
ISSUE 1
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS ARE NOT DEFAMATORY BECAUSE THEY ARE
TRUE AND CONCERN MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST; ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT FOR THIS CONCLUSION IS CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
8 is not disputed by Defendant
9 is disputed. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for her statement.
My statements are based on my
personal experience with plaintiff, and
voluminous court documents.
11 is disputed. Defendant had a
reasonable basis for her statement
when she wrote it, and has even more
support for her statement now, since
Dan Shinoff has refused to produce the
documents in question even after filing
a lawsuit in which he claims that he
doesn't keep documents locked up in
his files.
10 is not disputed by Defendant
Deposition of Ray Artiano
12 is not disputed by Defendant
13 is disputed. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for her statement.
15 Stutz motion in 2004
Lindsey Stuart
Claudia Houston
David Alberts
14 is not disputed by Defendant
15 is disputed. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for her statement.
16 is not disputed by Defendant
17 is disputed. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for all the statements
on her website. It seems that Plaintiff
meant to refer to 16, not 15, in this
statement.
18 is disputed. Defendant made it clear on
her website that she was guessing Bob
Gallagher's motives for leaving the firm he
helped to found. Plaintiff's own Exhibit "I"
shows that Defendant wrote, "My guess is
that two things motivated Gallagher: 1) He
was concerned that Shinoff and Artiano had
become reckless in their attitudes toward
use of intimidation as a tactic; and 2) He
couldn't tolerate the extreme lack of
ethics."
Defendant believes it is possible that
Gallagher consulted with his clergyman in
reaching his decision to leave the firm. Of
course, no honest and emotionally stable
person would claim that this proves that
Defendant is prejudiced against Catholics.
19 is disputed. It seems that Plaintiff meant
to refer to 18, not 17, in this statement.
Defendant did not make the statement of
which she is accused by Plaintiff in 18.
Defendant has a reasonable basis for all the
statements on her website.
20 is disputed. All of Defendant's statements
about SASH are true, except for minor
mistakes which Defendant has corrected, or
would be willing to correct if and when any
minor mistake might be brought to her
attention. SASH's statement 20 is hyperbolic,
of course; I trust that even SASH would admit
the truth of the statement, "Dan Shinoff
trains board members and employees as well
as attorneys." At the very least, SASH would
agree that "Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for
defamation against the author of this
website."
5: Defendant disputes the accuracy of the
typing in this statement. “Firm” is correct,
not “Firms.” A typo apparently slipped the
attention of Plaintiff when preparing the
RFAs, and also got past Defendant when she
was responding to the RFAs. In fact, as can
be seen in Plaintiff’s own Exhibit I for this
Motion, the correct quote is “Education Law
Firm Slammed by Federal Judge,” not “Law
Firms.”
1-4: Defendant DOES NOT dispute
these statements.
Answer of Maura Larkins to the
instant complaint
Answer of Maura Larkins to the
instant complaint
Answer of Maura Larkins to the
instant complaint
Answer of Maura Larkins to the
instant complaint
Answer of Maura Larkins to the
instant complaint
Defendant's Exhibit "___" (Page 4
of 14 of the June 16, 2008 printout
of
mauralarkins.com/stutzartianoshinoff
.html)
Plaintiff's Exhibit 'I"
|
Defendant's Exhibit "__"
(Page 4 of 14 of Plaintiff's
Exhibit "I," which is a
June 16, 2008 printout of
mauralarkins.com/stutzartianoshin
off.html )
Plaintiff's Exhibit 'I"
|
21and 22 are not disputed by Defendant
23 is disputed by Defendant. SASH
stated under oath in Ray Artiano's
deposition that it has no evidence of
any harm that has occurred to it as a
result of Defendant's website.
Ray Artiano deposition
24 is disputed by Defendant.
Defendant's declaration.
Plaintiff's Exhibits ________
|
Simply because Defendant disputes the defamatory nature of her statements does not entitle
Plaintiff to declaratory relief. The statement is preposterous.
25 is disputed. All of Defendant's statements
about SASH are true, except for minor mistakes
which Defendant has corrected, or would be
willing to correct if and when any minor
mistake might be brought to her attention.
SASH's statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that "Dan
Shinoff trains board members and employees as
well as attorneys." At the very least, SASH
would agree that Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07
for defamation against the author of this
website.
SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to deceive
the court.
26 and 27 are not disputed by Defendant
28 is disputed by Defendant. SASH stated
under oath on November 8, 2007 during Ray
Artiano's deposition that it has no evidence
of any harm that has occurred to it as a
result of Defendant's website, and has
produced no evidence to support the
statement during the year that has passed
since then. This information could easily
have been included in Daniel Shinoff's or
____'s declaration.
Ray Artiano deposition
Dan Shinoff declaration
____'s declaration
29 is disputed. Defendant would
eliminate any defamatory statement
that might find its shameful way onto
her website. It is only true statements
about matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website. Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about Plaintiff.
ISSUE 2: PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO DECLARATORY RELIEF; DEFENDANT
HAS A RIGHT TO REPORT AND DISCUSS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ON HER
WEBSITE, AND PLAINTIFF IS A PUBLIC FIGURE
PLAINTIFF MAY NOT SILENCE DEFENDANT SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS DEFENDING
HERSELF.
IN ITS PART I OF THE INSTANT MOTION, SASH SAID THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT
DISPUTE THAT "ALL OF DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ARE FALSE." IN PART II SASH
SAYS "DEFENDANT DISPUTES THE DEFAMATORY NATURE OF HER STATEMENTS."
SASH'S MOTION IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS.
|
From Defendant's declaration:
Defendant would eliminate any
defamatory statement that
might find its shameful way onto
her website. It is only true
statements about matters of
public interest that Defendant
wishes to keep on her website.
III.
ISSUE 3
PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
THE ONLY REASON PLAINTIFF HAS NO LEGAL REMEDY IS BECAUSE DEFENDANT'S
STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND THIS LITIGATION IS PURELY MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION. PLAINTIFF MAY NOT SILENCE DEFENDANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC
INTEREST.
PLAINTIFF STATES THAT IT WANTS "TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO ITS
BUSINESS AND REPUTATION." THIS INDICATES THAT PLAINTIFF IS CONCEALING
EVIDENCE.
|
IV
PLAINTIFF’S LIST OF “UNDISPUTED FACTS” REGARDING ISSUE 1
INCLUDES 9 DISPUTED FACTS
|
30 is disputed. All of Defendant's statements
about SASH are true, except for minor mistakes
which Defendant has corrected, or would be
willing to correct if and when any minor
mistake might be brought to her attention.
SASH's statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that "Dan
Shinoff trains board members and employees as
well as attorneys." At the very least, SASH
would agree that Stutz filed suit on Oct. 5, 07
for defamation against the author of this
website.
SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to deceive
the court.
31 and 32 are not disputed by Defendant
33 is disputed by Defendant. SASH stated
under oath on November 8, 2007 during Ray
Artiano's deposition that it has no evidence
of any harm that has occurred to it as a
result of Defendant's website, and has
produced no evidence to support the
statement during the year that has passed
since then. This information could easily
have been included in Daniel Shinoff's or
____'s declaration.
Ray Artiano deposition
Dan Shinoff declaration
____'s declaration
34 is disputed. Defendant would
eliminate any defamatory statement
that might find its shameful way onto
her website. It is only true statements
about matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website. Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about Plaintiff.
From Maura Larkins' deposition:
"Q. Did you do a search on any
PACER database to see if any orders
had been issued by any judge ever,
accusing the Stutz firm of unethical
behavior?
"A. No. I knew that from personal
experience."
--Plaintiff's Exhibit C (Larkins
Deposition page 75 lines 7-10)
Defendant’s Exhibit J
(Defendant’s responses to RFAs 8 and
9) is attached since Plaintiff's Exhibit
B has three pages missing, pages 2, 3,
and 4, which contain responses 8 and
9;
Plaintiff’s Exhibit A
(Plaintiff’s RFAs 8 and 9)
|
7. Regarding reasonableness and regard for
truth of alleged Defendant statements as
described above in "facts" 5 and 6:
What are SASH lawyers smoking?
It is preposterous to use RFAs 8 and 9 to claim
that because Defendant admits that the Moser
decision does not refer to Plaintiff or any of its
attorneys, then it is therefore unreasonable and
reckless for Defendant to say that Plaintiff is
unethical.
Defendant's statements are based on her
personal experience with plaintiff, and
voluminous court documents.
Defendant also disputes that she made
statements as described in "facts" 5 and 6. In
fact, 5 and 6 misrepresent statements on her
website (see responses to 5 and 6 above).
Defendant has a reasonable basis for all
statements on her website, and used care in
ascertaining that her statements were true
before she published them.
Daniel Shinoff’s declaration is a
blatant attempt to prejudice the court,
and contains a glaring hoax.
|
1
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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
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
1
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
|
|
|
|
) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
) Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept: 68
) Date January 9, 2009 10:30 a.m.
)
) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
) DISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION
) TO PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT
)
) TRIAL DATE: APRIL 3, 2009
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
|
|
|
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
______________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
|
|
|
|
ORIGINAL
|
|
|
Statements made by SASH (and
characterized by SASH as "undisputed") in its Motion
for Summary Judgment
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|