liberi v taitz plaintiffs reply to taitz opp doc 199

8/6/2019 Liberi v Taitz Plaintiffs Reply to Taitz Opp Doc 199

1/10

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for 1

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

Philip J. Berg, EsquirePennsylvania I.D. 9867

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Telephone: (610) 825-3134E-mail:[email protected] Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

:::::::::::::

:::

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO

DEFENDANTS ORLY TAITZ and

ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.Location: Courtroom 10D

PLANITIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

REPLY TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ and ORLY TAITZ, ESQUIRE

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION

COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times

Berg]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times Ostella]; Go Excel Global; Lisa Liber

[hereinafter at times Liberi]; and The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and files the

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#:5677


2/10


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

within Memorandum Of Points and Authorities in Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz

and Orly Taitz, Esq. [hereinafter Defendant] Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion

Seeking Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; and for an Order that Leave

must be Granted by the Court prior to the filing of any Motions. In support hereof

Plaintiffs aver the following:

1. Defendant in their Opposition states Plaintiffs filing of their

Supplemental with their First Amended Complaint attached is deficient

Defendant claims Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint is

deficient. Defendant then cites CACD L.R. 15-1, which states, Any proposed

amended pleading must be electronically filed as a document separate from a

related motion or stipulation. [Def. Opp, p. 2, 2, ll. 20-23]. As can be seen by

the Courts Docket, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint separate from their

Motion and Brief as required by this Rule.

2. Defendant next states Plaintiffs Motion is deficient because CACD

L.R. 15-3 provides, An amended pleading allowed by order of the Court shall be

deemed served upon the parties who have previously appeared on the date the

motion to amend is granted or the stipulation therefor is approved [Def. Opp, p

2, 2, ll. 24-26] Plaintiffs Motion is set to be heard on June 13, 2011 at 10:00 a.m

Therefore, Plaintiffs are at a loss as to why Defendants cited this Local Rule.



3/10


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

3. Defendant next contends the amended pleading is required to be filed

prior to the hearing on the motion, Local Rule 7-5 requires that the proposed

amended pleading be filed concurrently with the notice of motion. CACD LR 7-5

provides: There shall be served and filed with the notice of motion: (a) brie

complete memorandum in support thereof and the points and authorities upon

which the moving party will rely; and (b) The evidence upon which the moving

party will reply in support of motion. [Def. Opp, p. 1, 2, ll. 27-28 and p. 2, ll. 1-

4]. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief) in Support of

their Motion and evidence in which they relied. Plaintiffs filed their Amended

Complaint prior to the hearing and Plaintiffs were not supposed to file their First

Amended Complaint with the Notice of Motion as claimed by Defendant as this

would notbe compliant with this Courts L.R. 15-1.

4. Defendant states CACD LR 7-12 provides, The Court may decline

to consider any memorandum or other paper not filed within the deadline set by

order or local rule. The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file i

within the deadline, may be deemed consent to granting or denial of motion.

Plaintiffs filed the Proposed First Amended Complaint as an attachmenton May

20, 2011, just one [1] business day before the instant opposition is due. This

Courts Local Rule 7-12 pertains to Motions, Oppositions and Replies. Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint could notbe filed with Plaintiffs Motion Seeking Leave



4/10


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

as that would violate this Courts Local Rule 15-1. Further, before filing the

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs were waiting for confirmations from their Experts

regarding the allegations plead against the Reed Defendants, Intelius, Inc.

Daylight Chemical, Oracle and Yosef Taitz. Once verification of the language

used and the reasons giving rise to the Amended Complaint were confirmed,

Plaintiffs immediately filed their First Amended Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs

also requested Leave to File their First Amended Complaint in their Opposition to

Defendant Taitzs Anti-SLAPP and Motion to Dismiss. See Docket No. 186 filed

May 5, 2011, p. 4, 6, ll. 4-5; p. 12, 23, ll. 1-4; p. 22, 40, ll. 11-14; and p. 24

46, ll. 20-25, which Defendant failed to cite and/or refer to.

5. If Defendants felt they needed additional time to review Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint, in order to respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to

Amend, they could have simply requested Plaintiffs to agree to an extension of

time, which they failed to do. Once Plaintiffs are granted Leave to Amend and

their Amended Complaint is officially filed, Defendants will have the appropriate

time to Answer the Amended Complaint and/or file a Motion to Dismiss. Thus

there is no prejudice. This Court has the inherent power to consider and gran

Leave for the filing of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. See Yusov v. Yusuf

892 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1989).



5/10


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

6. Defendant claims Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is futile, which is

completely untrue as demonstrated by their First Amended Complaint.

7. Defendants through their Opposition claim Plaintiffs Amended

Complaint should notbe allowed without knowing who the additional parties are

Plaintiffs have filed their First Amended Complaint with the new parties entered,

thus the Court is aware of the new Defendants as are the Defendants.

8. Defendant next claims there are no new claims asserted by Plaintiffs

Defendant claims in essence that the malicious prosecution claim is somehow the

same as Plaintiffs Defamation, Libel, and Slander Cause of Action; this is

complete nonsense. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiffs Complaint, as plead for

Pennsylvania, covers these issues and any amendment is futile, which is ridiculous

[Def. Opp. P. 4, 5, ll. 15-24]. Defendant Taitz as an Attorney and an Officer of

the Court through her law practice filed papers in the San Bernardino County

Superior Court in April 2011 attempting to have Plaintiff Lisa Liberi falsely

imprisoned based on unsubstantiated assertions that Liberi somehow violated her

terms and conditions of probation. Three [3] Court Hearings took place which

required appearances and counsel. Plaintiff Liberi was cleared of all falsified

allegations asserted by Defendants Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz, Esquire. This is

far and beyond Defamation, Libel and Slander. The laws of California and

Pennsylvania differ drastically. Further, there are additional Defendants Plaintiffs



6/10


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

must add as DOE Defendants based on newly discovered evidence. Even after

suit was filed in Pennsylvania pursuant to the Pennsylvania laws, Defendant Orly

Taitz continued her illegal tactics which gave rise to the within lawsuit. Defendant

is trying to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to redress and their ability to recoup

damages caused by the illegal behaviors of Defendant Orly Taitz.

9. Defendant is asking for this Court to deny giving Leave to Plaintiffs to

File their First Amended Complaint. Defendant fails to cite to any prejudice, as

there isnt any prejudice to the Defendant; they cant cite bad faith as Plaintiffs

filed in good-faith; or undue delay as the Case was just recently transferred to this

district. Plaintiffs have not previously amended their complaint. If Plaintiffs ar

denied, they will be severely prejudiced as they will be foreclosed from redress and

recouping their damages suffered as a result of the Defendants actions.

10. As this Court is aware, this case was originally filed May 4, 2009 in

Pennsylvania. The Court Ordered the case Transferred which Defendant appealed

the Courts transfer Order, which was not an appealable Order, holding up the

transfer for over nine [9] months. Defendants Appeal was Dismissed as the Court

lacked jurisdiction. There has been no question that Plaintiffs need to amend their

complaint to bring it in compliance with California laws; to add as DOE

Defendants parties recently discovered; and to add the new causes of actions.



7/10


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

11. As stated in Plaintiffs Motion, the United States Supreme Court, the

Ninth Circuit, and this Court have repeatedly reaffirmed that Leave to Amend is to

be Granted with "extreme liberality."DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d

183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S

178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given)

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)

(Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors

there exists apresumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.)

(emphasis in original); United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)

(courts should be guided by policy favoring decisions on the merits "rather than on

the pleadings or technicalities"); See also Moore, 3-15 Moore's Federal Practice -

Civil 15.14 ("A liberal, pro-amendment ethos dominates the intent and judicia

construction of Rule 15(a)."). The primary factors relied upon by the Supreme

Court and the Ninth Circuit in denying a motion for leave to amend are "bad faith

undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment." DCD

Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. None of these apply.

12. Although the undersigned was served by the ECF systems with Mr

Marasigan, counsel for Defendant Orly Taitz, Esquires filings, Mr. Marasigan

failed to notice the undersigned on his Certificate of Service.

//

//



8/10


9/10


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

Philip J. Berg, EsquirePennsylvania I.D. 9867

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Telephone: (610) 825-3134E-mail:[email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LISA LIBERI, et al,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Defendants.

::::

:::::::::

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)

PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE

I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs

Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs

Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint was served through the ECF filing

system and/or mail as indicated below, this 24th day of May 2011 upon the

following:

Jayson Q. Marasigan

Dack Marasigan, LLP23041 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 300

Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Email: [email protected]

Served through the Courts ECF Filing System

Attorney for Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire



10/10

liberi v taitz plaintiffs reply to taitz opp doc 199

Documents