Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

7,270 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY BATTALIONGAVIN, Plaintiff, v. GLENMCDEER, Defendant. Case No. RSC-CV-743 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT GLENMCDEER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT Plaintiff, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, files this response in opposition to Defendant GlenMcDeer’s Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the defendant’s motion. I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In the motion to dismiss, Defendant raises a perceptible legal claim. This claim being lack of standing, which is customarily brought forth to challenge a civil action that does not hold water. In a civil action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they have “standing” to bring a legal claim.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 49 (2013). Standing, in essence, is the single handedly most important requisite of the law when bringing forth a civil action. Defendant challenges the plaintiff’s standing within their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, however, continues to maintain that there was establishment of injury in-fact as a result of the false statements, thus constituting what is defined as “standing.” To determine injury in-fact, the Supreme Court established that a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016) (reaffirming the application of the traditional standing test from Lujan, 504 U.S.). Plaintiff, through his response in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss, will establish that he: (1) Has retained an injury that is of a legally protected interest; and (2) Withholds legal standing to bring forth a legal claim before this court. II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS In cases where a speaker has damaged the reputation of a public official due to the publication of a defamatory falsehood, the public official may hold the speaker liable if the publication was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); see also Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52 (1988) (reaffirming that a public official may hold an individual liable when a defamatory statement that is made falsely with knowledge of the contrary damages the reputation of the public official). A court may not dismiss a complaint as a matter of law insofar as the complaint meets the three elements that constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” The three elements of standing, the Supreme Court has reiterated, are: (1) a concrete and particularized injury, that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Ibid. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must assume that the complaint’s factual allegations are true, and should construe all inferences from them in the non-moving party’s favor. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s complaint contains perceptible theories, and sufficient factual basis’ to support a perceptible claim. Thus, with this in mind, Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied. III. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING To establish the plaintiff’s standing with the legal claims brought forth, we must demonstrate that the plaintiff sufficiently, and adequately meets the requirements of the test set in Lujan. As to the first prong of establishing that there was “a concrete and particularized injury,” plaintiff received countless threats, insults, and vulgar commentary solely based off of the false facts as presented in the billboard. The Supreme Court, on concrete and particularized injury, has upheld that for an injury to be ‘particularized,' it must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Ibid. (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016)). Whereas personal attacks directed toward the plaintiff have surfaced, the injury has conclusively affected the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. As to the first prong, plaintiff sufficiently withholds standing to bring forth a claim to this court. In adequately meeting the second prong under the Lujan test, the plaintiff must sufficiently prove that the injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.” In demonstrating the traceability of the challenged conduct, we refer to a select few comments pertaining to the billboard. For example, one Citizen personally tagged the plaintiff stating: “[I] heard from my amazing sources…and it just so happens that if you touch sugarcane in the Senate...you will be executed in the following hours…” This comment strongly insinuates the billboard's statement claiming that the plaintiff was going to regulate sugarcane. Another Citizen ranting “IMPEACH GAVIN” in reference to the false statements of the billboard, spreading the defective information mentioned herein. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Lujan, and many cases alike that when this prong is met, a plaintiff has standing. As to the second prong, plaintiff sufficiently withholds standing to bring forth a claim to this court. As to the third and final prong to determine standing as set in Lujan, the plaintiff must sufficiently demonstrate that this court is likely to “redress the allegations by a favorable decision.” In exemplifying this, it can be adequately determined that this court is likely to redress the allegations by a favorable decision given prior claims of billboard defamation within this court. Specifically, this court has previously held that “the dissemination of[] claims throughout the in-game advertisement system (RidgeAds), and through the discords,” can doubtlessly harm a Plaintiff’s career as a public official. Dannlabs v. Stanley_Labson, RSC-CV-421. The ruling of this court in Dannlabs, sets clear passage to the likelihood of redress to the claims at hand, thus providing the plaintiff to sufficiently withhold standing to bring forth a claim to this court. It is objectively clear that the plaintiff sufficiently meets all three prongs, and his burden to establish standing as set in the Lujan test. The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that when a plaintiff fulfills their burden of establishing standing with the three prongs mentioned herein, that then the plaintiff withholds standing to bring forth a claim. This court should uphold centuries of preeminent precedent, and dismiss the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Dated: November 15, 2022 Respectfully Submitted. STICKZA Managing Partner COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: stick#0677 E: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff

RSC-CV-743_-_Response.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record