Archive for the 'FORSYTH v MPAA' Category

FORSYTH v MPAA: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF, Nov 7, 2016

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
The sole justification Plaintiff offers for his post-hearing brief is counsel’s opinion that he could have done a better job articulating his arguments at the hearing. That is not a valid justification. If it were, there would be no end to the briefs parties would submit. Defendants respectfully request that the […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: PLAINTIFF’S [PROPOSED] POSTHEARING BRIEF, Nov 3, 2016

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
I. WHAT ARE THE MISREPRESENTATIONS?
There are two: (a) in the context of defendants’ rating system, a rating of less than “R” represents that a film is appropriate for children under 17 without a parent, when in fact films with smoking are not, and (b) under the law, a statement that a […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A POST-HEARING BRIEF, Nov 3, 2016

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
1. At the hearing on October 28, counsel did not feel that the Court’s questions on the three subjects addressed in the attached proposed document were adequately dealt with by counsel at the time. The failing was the undersigned’s, but the consequences redound to the detriment of the proposed class.
2. The […]

DOCKET for FORSYTH v MPAA, Oct 11-Nov 3, 2016

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

EXCERPT:
11/03/2016 56 MOTION for Leave to File a Post-Hearing Brief filed by Timothy Forsyth. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit [Proposed] Post-Hearing Brief)
END EXCERPT

FORSYTH v MPAA: DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION, Oct 6, 2016

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Defendants respectfully submit the following recent decision and case development that followed Defendants’ filing of their Reply on the motion to strike/motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 48.
1. On September 28, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Hon. Stephen V. Wilson) entered an order granting with prejudice […]

DOCKET for FORSYTH v MPAA, Sep 15-16, 2016

Friday, September 16th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
09/15/2016 48 Brief re 47 Stipulation and Order,, Terminate Motions,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Defendants’ Reply In Support of 1 Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Anti-SLAPP Statute . . .
09/15/2016 49 Request for Judicial Notice re 48 Brief,, Defendants Supplemental Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of 1 Special Motion To Strike […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: STIPULATION AND ORDER, Aug 9, 2016

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
1. Defendants’ special motion to strike Plaintiff’s action pursuant to California’s anti- SLAPP statute, in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), will be heard on October 27, 2016, at 13 1:30 p.m.;
2. Defendants’ Reply brief(s) is […]

DOCKET for FORSYTH v MPAA, Aug 9, 2016

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

EXCERPT:
08/09/2016 47 STIPULATION AND ORDER Re: Defendants’ Reply in support of special motion to strike plaintiffs’ action pursuant to California’s Anti-Slapp statute and motion to dismiss, and hearing date for special motion to strike. . . .
08/09/2016 Reset Motion Hearing Re: [#31 and #33] Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE…MOTION TO STRIKE and HEARING DATE, July 29, 2016

Monday, August 1st, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
D. The parties met and conferred by telephone and email regarding these issues over several days, and agreed that Defendants’ deadline to file a Reply in support of their motion to strike and motion to dismiss should be September 15, 2016.
. . .
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate that, subject […]

DOCKET for FORSYTH v MPAA, July 15, 2016

Friday, July 15th, 2016

EXCERPT:
07/15/2016 44 RESPONSE (re 31 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Defendants’ Notice of Motions and 1 Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to California Anti-SLAPP Statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 425.16 et seq., or, in the alternative, 2 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant, 33 MOTION to Strike Complaint ) filed byTimothy Forsyth. . . .
07/15/2016 45 Request […]