The Moscow Murders and More

Title The Order Denying Garth Brooks Motion To Dismiss The Lawsuit Against Him (12/31/24)

In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.

The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.

(commercial at 7:33)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdf

Duration:: 12m
Broadcast on:: 31 Dec 2024
Audio Format:: other

The NFL playoffs are better with FanDuel because right now new customers can bet five dollars and get two hundred bucks in bonus bets guaranteed that's two hundred dollars in bonus bets win or lose FanDuel, an official sports book partner of the NFL. 21+ and president select states, first online real money wage or only, five dollar first deposit required, bonus issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets which expire seven days after receipt, restrictions apply, see terms at sportsbook.fanDuel.com, gambling problem, call 1-800-Gambler. At Arizona State University, we're bringing world-class education from our globally acclaimed faculty to you, ranked number one in innovation for ten consecutive years, and number two among public universities for employability. ASU isn't just ahead of the curve, it's creating new paths to success. Earn your degree from the nation's most innovative university. Online, that's a degree better. Explore more than 300 undergraduate graduate and certificate programs at ASUOnline.asu.edu. What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to dive back into the Garth Brooks core documents and we're going to check out the order that was passed down by Judge Fitzgerald in regards to Garth Brooks and the motion to dismiss that we've been discussing for the past few days. And once we get this order, locked in, we'll be completely caught up as far as court paperwork goes when it comes to Garth Brooks. So let's dive in, case number, CV24-09462-MWF, Jane Rowe vs Garth Brooks. The honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald. Order Denying Without Prejudice, Defendance Motion to Dismiss. Order Denying, as moot, plaintiff's application for leave to submit documents for in-camera review. Before the court is a motion to dismiss, the motion, filed by Defendent Garth Brooks, on November 8th, 2024, docket number 12. plaintiff Jane Rowe filed an opposition on November 22nd, 2024, docket number 19. End filed a reply on December 2nd, 2024, docket number 25. The motion was noticed to be heard on December 16th, 2024. The court read and considered the papers on the motion and deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fedarsiv P-78B, Local Rule 7-15. The hearing was therefore vacated and removed from the court's calendar. The court rules as follows. The motion is denied without prejudice. The action is stayed pending the outcome of the pending motions in Dover's row. Case number 324-CV-547-HTW-LGI Southern District of Mississippi. plaintiff's application for leave to submit documents for in-camera review, docket 26, is denied as moot because the court does not deem it necessary to review the documents prior to issuing its ruling. Background On October 3rd, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in the Superior Court in the state of California for the county of Los Angeles docket number 1, the complaint. On November 1st, 2024, defendant removed this action to the federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, US Code 28 Section 1332. Maintenance of removal docket number 1 at 12. The court summarizes the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as follows. In 1999, plaintiff, a makeup artist and hairstylist began working for defendant's wife. In 2017, plaintiff began doing hair and makeup for defendant as well. plaintiff alleges at beginning in 2019, defendant, subjected her to various acts of sexual misconduct including rape. As a result of her experience, plaintiff was unable to continue working for defendant and sought legal counsel. plaintiff alleges the six following causes of action against the defendant, one assault, two battery, three sexual battery, California Civil Code Section 1708.5, four violation of the Tom Bain Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1, five violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, California Civil Code 51.7, and six gender violence, Civil Code Section 52.4 C2, complaint 114 through 150. On July 17, 2024, prior filing her lawsuit, plaintiff sent a pre litigation letter to defendant in an attempt to discuss a resolution of her claims, opposition at five. Throughout the month of August, plaintiff's counsel and defendant's counsel engaged in discussions regarding plaintiff's claims. During these discussions, plaintiff's counsel communicated that if a resolution was not reached by September 13, 2024, plaintiff would file a complaint against defendant in California. The discussions continued until September 9, 2024. On September 13, 2024, however, defendant filed a lawsuit, the Mississippi action against plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Motion at seven. The Mississippi action asserts various tort claims under Mississippi law, including defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. Plaintive alleges that defendant filed the Mississippi action as forum shopping maneuver to deny plaintiff access to a preferred forum and to anti-slap statutes. Defendant now moves to dismiss the action entirely under federal rules of several procedure, 12(b)(6) and 13(a), motion at six, two, application for leave to submit documents for in-camera review. On December 10, 2024, plaintiff filed an application for leave to submit documents in-camera review docket number 26. Plaintive seeks leave to submit copies of certain pleadings filed in the Mississippi action, which plaintiff references in her opposition, IDEA, too. The docket for the Mississippi action is currently under seal. For reasons discussed below, the court does not deem necessary to review the pleadings in the Mississippi action at this time. Accordingly, the application is denied as moot. 3. Discussion. Defendant argues that plaintiff's claim should be dismissed because a constitute compulsory counterclaims in the Mississippi action. A counterclaim is considered compulsory, where at the time of responsive pleading, the pleading party has a claim against the opposing party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. And the claim does not require adding another party over whom the court lacks jurisdiction. Fedarsiv p13a1, where the original action is still pending, district courts will generally either stay the later file proceedings or dismiss the claim with leave to plead in the original action. Charles Allen Wright and Arthur R Miller, federal practice and procedure, section 1418, third edition 2024. The parties do not dispute that plaintiff's claims rise out of the same transaction of occurrence as that in the Mississippi action. Plaintive however contends that she is a putative plaintiff and the complaint, both for this court is the true first file complaint, opposition at 10. Due to defendants allege forum shopping tactics, plaintiff argues the court should deny the motion on equitable grounds and allow her claims to proceed in normal course before this court, ID at 11. Plaintive raises similar arguments in a revised omnibus motion to dismiss filed in the Mississippi action on November 4, 2024, see opposition at 9, 19, and 20. The court determines the most appropriate course of action is to allow the Mississippi court to adjudicate plaintiff's equitable arguments in the first instance. See Paysetter Systems Incorporated, first Medtronic Incorporated, 678, F.2D93, 96, 9 circuit, 1982. Noting that the court filed action is not required to duplicate an inquiry before the first file court, notably under the Fifth Circuit law, the first file court should determine whether an exception to the first file rule applies. See Mad Manufacturing Incorporated versus Hortex Incorporated, 439, F.2D403, 408, Fifth Circuit, 1971. Once the likelihood of substantial overlap between the two suits has been demonstrated, it's no longer up to the later filed court to resolve the question of whether both should be allowed to proceed. See also SavePower Limited vs Cintech Fin Corporation 121, F.3D947, 950, Fifth Circuit, 1997. The Fifth Circuit adheres to the general rule that the court, in which an action is first filed, is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issue should proceed. This court thus defers to the Mississippi court, the first court filed. Because the Mississippi court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs, revised omnibus motion to dismiss, dismissal of this action is inappropriate at this time. See Thomas and Betz Corporation vs Rob Roy Industries Incorporated CV 15-04150-BRO GJS X 2015 WL 471 8892 at 6, Central District of California August 6, 2015. Staying a later-filled case where the first file court had not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion to transfer. See also, all trade incorporated vs UniWelled Products Incorporated 946 F.2D 622 9 Circuit 1991. Where there was a likelihood of dismissal in the first filed action, second filed suit should be stayed rather than dismissed, British Telecom's PLC vs. McDonnell Douglas Corporation CV 93-00677 MHP 1993 WL 149-860 at 5, Northern District of California, May 3, 1993, declining to dismiss the case, and staying the proceedings where a jurisdictional and joineder issues remained unresolved in the first filed court. For conclusion, accordingly the motion is denied without prejudice. The action is stayed pending the outcome of the pending motions in DO vs RO, case number 324-CV-547-HTW-LGI in Mississippi, defended in this action is ordered to inform this court of any rulings in the Mississippi action within 10 days. Additionally, plaintiffs' application for leave to submit documents for in-camera review, document number 26 is denied as moot because the court does not deem it necessary to review the documents prior to issuing its ruling. It is so ordered. And this document was signed on December 11th and it was signed by Judge Fitzgerald. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.