Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
5,226 characters extracted
—
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
PAGE - 1 -
R LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY’S REPLY AND NOTICE OF CORRECTED SUPPLE
TonyBlony492,RBN19309
Filing username: TonyBlony492
Counsel for: Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
thr33six8, Case No. RSC-CV-8427
Plaintiff,
vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AlbertWellesley,et.al., SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT
Defendant. RASHHYYYY’S REPLY AND
NOTICE OF CORRECTED
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
Relief Requested
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Grant leave to file this Sur-Reply to Defendant Rashhyyyy’s Reply and
Notice of Corrected Supplemental Evidence;
2. Deny Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) as to the claims
against Rashhyyyy for Abuse of Process under 7 R. Stat. § 121.402,
Tortious Interference under 7 R. Stat. § 121.203, and Fraud under 7 R.
Stat. § 121.202; and
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
PAGE - 2 -
R LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY’S REPLY AND NOTICE OF CORRECTED SUPPLE
3. Deny or defer Defendant’s request to dismiss or strike the
punitive-damages demand against Rashhyyyy.
Grounds and Governing Law
Leave is warranted because Defendant’s September 11 filing introduces
corrected supplemental evidence (the complete disciplinary-ticket transcript designated
Exhibit 15 and the video clip identified by Bates No. BATES-20260911-2970940998)
together with a new timeline drawn from that evidence. Plaintiff has not previously had
an opportunity to address these materials.
The governing statutes are:
(a) 7 R. Stat. § 121.202 (Fraud): “Any individual who intentionally deceives
another party to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or deprive a victim of a
legal right commits fraud and is liable for compensatory damages;
injunctive relief, and punitive damages of up to $5,000.00.”
(b) 7 R. Stat. § 121.203 (Tortious Interference): “Any individual who damages
another’s business relationships, contracts, or career with a third party
causing economic and career harm to another commits tortious
interference and is liable for compensatory damages; and may be liable for
punitive damages of up to $8,000.00.”
(c) 7 R. Stat. § 121.402 (Abuse of Process): “Any individual who abuses a
legal process such as a court proceeding or administrative proceeding by
means of providing vexatious, fraudulent, or frivolous complaints to get
another in trouble commits abuse of process and shall be liable for
injunctive relief and punitive damages of up to $5,000.00.”
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
PAGE - 3 -
R LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY’S REPLY AND NOTICE OF CORRECTED SUPPLE
Conferral and Party Positions
Plaintiff has not conferred with Defendant Rashhyyyy regarding this Sur-Reply
because the Reply was filed only two days ago and introduces new evidentiary material
that requires a prompt response. Plaintiff expects Defendant will oppose leave and will
continue to maintain that the July 28 report was not a substantial factor in the interim
suspension or resulting injuries.
Argument
(a) The corrected transcript and timeline confirm that Defendant’s July 28
report was the initiating event that opened the disciplinary ticket. The ticket
was opened the same evening Defendant identified Plaintiff by name and
Bar number and reported the alleged arrest. Only later (August 10) did the
Board announce consolidation with other complaints, and the formal
finding of grounds for prosecution did not occur until August 24. Under 7 R.
Stat. § 121.203, damaging another’s career through such an initiating
complaint remains actionable even if concurrent causes later contribute.
(b) Defendant’s attempt to separate the July 28 factual report from the July 30
Bar Integrity Act discussion is artificial. Both communications occurred
inside the same ticket Defendant opened. The Board ultimately proceeded
on the criminal-activity ground supplied by Defendant’s report. This
supports liability under both 7 R. Stat. § 121.202 (fraud) and 7 R. Stat. §
121.402 (abuse of process by means of a vexatious or fraudulent
complaint to an administrative body).
(c) The “no duty to disclose” argument does not defeat the fraud claim.
Section 121.202 reaches intentional deception that deprives a victim of a
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
PAGE - 4 -
R LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY’S REPLY AND NOTICE OF CORRECTED SUPPLE
legal right; it does not require a pre-existing freestanding duty to brief the
State Bar on legislative timing.
(d) The punitive-damages demand is authorized by the same statutes (up to
$5,000 under § 121.202 and § 121.402, and up to $8,000 under §
121.203). It stands or falls with the underlying claims and should not be
dismissed independently at the pleading stage.
Conclusion
The corrected evidence does not eliminate the causal role of Defendant’s July 28
report. Plaintiff’s claims under 7 R. Stat. §§ 121.202, 121.203, and 121.402 remain
adequately pleaded. The Court should grant leave to file this Sur-Reply and deny the
Amended Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Rashhyyyy.
