Beyond The Horizon
Diddy Do It: Diddy's Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Dismissal (Part 2) (6/23/24)
A memorandum of law in further support of dismissal is a legal document submitted by a party in a lawsuit to reinforce and elaborate on their arguments for why the case should be dismissed. Here’s a breakdown of its components and purpose:
- Purpose: The memorandum aims to persuade the court to dismiss the case, often for reasons such as lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or procedural deficiencies.
- Content:
- Legal Arguments: It contains detailed legal arguments, citing statutes, case law, and other legal precedents that support the motion to dismiss.
- Factual Basis: It may also include a recitation of the facts, demonstrating how they fail to meet the legal standards required to proceed with the case.
- Rebuttal: If there has been an opposition to the initial motion to dismiss, this memorandum will address and counter those points, providing further clarification and evidence to undermine the opposing arguments.
- Format:
- Introduction: A summary of the reasons for dismissal.
- Argument: A structured and detailed presentation of legal reasons and supporting authorities.
- Conclusion: A concise restatement of the request for dismissal and a summary of the key points.
(commercial at 7:04)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.62.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 13m
- Broadcast on:
- 23 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
King's Hawaiian wants you to slide her Sunday your way, and there are only two things you need to know to create your perfect sliders. First, start with King's Hawaiian rolls and slider buns, since the best sliders always start with King's Hawaiian. Second, there's no wrong way to make a slider, whatever combinations you love to create are the perfect sliders for you. So do slide her Sunday your way. Go to the bakery or deli section of your grocery store and pick up those sweet, fluffy, irresistible King's Hawaiian rolls and slider buns, and enjoy. Luckyland Slots asking people what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky? Lucky? In line with the deli, I guess? Uh-huh. In my dentist's office. More than once, actually. Do I have to say? Yes, you do. In the car before my kids' PTA meeting? Really? Yes. Excuse me. What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky? I never win and tell. Well, there you have it. You could get lucky anywhere playing at luckylandslots.com. Play for free right now. Are you feeling lucky? No purchase necessary, VGW group would be recruited by law 18 plus terms and conditions apply. What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with Diddy and the other assailants or alleged assailants, I should say, and their response to Jane Doe. The VGM's 2022 amendment is not retroactive and thus cannot resuscitate plaintiff's claims. Nothing in the VGM's legislative history or any case law supports retroactive application of the VGM's 2022 amendment. As an initial matter, plaintiff misunderstands the concept of retroactivity as evidenced by her claim that retroactivity is irrelevant because plaintiff brings claims under the current law. Opposition brief at nine. Every plaintiff seeking retroactive application of a statute of rule brings claims under the current law. Retroactivity concerns whether current law may be applied to conduct occurring before the law was enacted. CEG, Regina Metro Company, LLC, First New York State, Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 35NY 3D, 332, 349, 2020. Analyzing whether amendments currently in effect apply to conduct that occurred before their passage, plaintiff cannot apply the 2022 amendment extending VGM liability to include parties in her case. The presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence. And embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our republic. Land graph versus USI film productions, 511 US 244 265 1994, when deciding if this presumption applies a court must determine whether the legislature expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach. And if it did not, whether the statute would impair rights or party possessed, when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed, IDA 280. Here are the VGM amendments language does not address retroactivity, nor does plaintiff cite any legislative history discussing retroactivity, second the amendment, expanded liability by extending the VGM's application from individuals to parties and broadening liability from only those who commit gender motivated violence to those who direct, enable, participate in or conspire to commit such acts. NYC admin code section 10 dash 1104, thus the presumption against retroactivity applies. Plaintives argument that the VGM was fashioned as remedial, giving rise to a presumption of retroactivity. Opposition brief at 10 does not change the retroactivity analysis and plaintiff's reliance on and Gleason is misplaced. The case observed that remedial legislation should be given retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose. 96 NY 2D 117 120 2001, thus remedial statutes are not presumptively retroactive but may be retroactive if necessary to effectuate a specific purpose. CVIP Pet Grooming Studio Inc. vs. Sproul 224 AD 3D 78 89 Second Department 2024 The remedial nature of a statutory amendment is not a basis in and of itself for ignoring the long-standing legal presumption that new enactments be prospective because all statutory amendments are at some level remedial. The 2022 VGM amendment is not remedial, as explained in Gleason a statute is remedial if 1) the legislature passed the statute with a sense of urgency, swiftly after the occurrence necessitating the statute and 2) the legislative history, establishes that the amendment's purpose was to clarify what the law was always meant to do and say, Gleason 96 NY 2D 122. The 2000 VGM statute enacted in response to and nearly immediately after the Violence Against Women's Act was struck down, see opposition brief at 10-11, arguably satisfies the urgency requirement. The same cannot be said of the 2022 VGM amendment which was enacted over two decades after the statute's original enactment. City of Majuski vs. Brattlepin Perth's Central School District 91 New York 2D 577 583 1999 The fact that a statute is to take effect immediately is equivocal and an analysis of retroactivity, quoting Becker vs. Hus Company 43 NY 2D 527 541 1978 Moreover, plaintiff makes no suggestion that the amendment was designed to correct a misinterpretation or to fill a gap. There is nothing remedial about it. Finally, the claim revival provision in section 10 1105 does not support retroactivity of the VGM. Plaintiff erroneously maintains that because the amendment's purpose was to create a two-year look-back window for limitation purposes, the council's intent was that the amendment in its entirety extends backwards, opposition brief at 11. That argument conflates with distinct legal concepts of retroactivity and claim revival. A claim revival provision revives claims that could have been brought at the time of the alleged conduct but have expired due to the running of the applicable statute of limitations. In contrast, retroactivity allows a statute or amendment to apply to a alleged conduct that occurred before the statute or amendment became effective. Here a plaintiff's purported claim is based on a leg misconduct occurring before the amended language in section 10-1104 was enacted, but nothing in that amendment provides for, refers to, or suggests, that it should be applied retroactively. Both Bellino and Louis v. Nederhofer, No. 23-COV6470LTS2023WL8777015SDNY, December 19, 2023, are controlling, despite Plaintiff's contrary view, opposition brief at 11. While the conduct in those cases occurred before the 2000 enactment of the VGM, neither court found that the claim revival provision, in section 10-1105, supported retroactivity argument, CMT debriefing at 12. Accordingly, because the VGM is not retroactive, Plaintiff's claim is barred. Plaintiff cannot argue allegations outside of the complaint in opposing this motion. As stated in the MTD brief, a corporation can only act through its employees, Osbokar v. SCODI-906F.SUPP2D188-194WDNY 2012, thus Plaintiff's suggestion that corporate liability need not be imputed from the misconduct of an employee is plainly wrong. Opposition brief at 11. Here the only employees identified in the FAC are the individual defendants, whose alleged misconduct is indisputably outside the scope of employment. "I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan." "Hey, how's it going today?" "It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do." "I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan & Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm." "That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion won. 20 million is an insane number." "Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think, somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows, so the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on." "Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan & Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?" "Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's pound 529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 24/7, 365." "Wow. Dan Morgan. From Morgan & Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show." "Thanks for having me." Visit ForThePeople.com for an office near you. Lucky Land Slots asking people, "What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?" "Lucky? In line at the deli, I guess?" "Aha, in my dentist's office. More than once, actually." "Do I have to say?" "Yes, you do." "In the car, before my kids' PTA meeting." "Really?" "Yes." "Excuse me, what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?" "I never win and tell." "Well, there you have it. You could get lucky anywhere playing at Luckylandslots.com. Play for free right now. Are you feeling lucky? No purchase necessary. What would be regretted by law 18+ terms and conditions apply?" At most, Plaintive argues, without relying on a single paragraph in the FAC, that because the studio and the record label plainly made it possible for the horrific assault of Miss Dodo occur, the corporate defendants enable the unlawful conduct and are therefore liable. Opposition brief at 12. But Plaintive never explains the studio and record label did anything. She simply makes a conclusory, ball-faced assertion, and they jointly engaged in unexplained conduct. Without alleging an identifiable act or omission, any direct liability claim against the corporate defendants cannot survive this motion. In a last-ditch effort, Plaintive argues that the individual defendants allege misconduct is imputable to the corporate defendants because it was within the scope of employment. Specifically, Plaintive boldly states that there is ample evidence that sexual assault was, in fact, a regular part of Bad Boys' business, and that for an executive or employee of Comme's companies, including Bad Boy and Daddy's House, sexual misconduct was part and parcel of the job. IDEA 12 and 13 In support, Plaintive references unproven allegations of four other recently filed lawsuits, IDEA 13 and 14, on the basis of those pleadings only, Plaintive concludes, without more, that Sean Comme's corporations were in the very business of sexual misconduct, IDEA 14. That allegation is not even close to those necessary to sustain her claim. In reviewing the FAC, it alleges only that the corporate defendants are in the business of music, media, and entertainment, but makes no allegation concerning any business involving sexual misconduct, identifying BBE as a well-known recording label. Plaintive cannot use the opposition as a means to insert facts into her other pleadings. Oliver vs. City of New York, No. 19, CV, 112-19-PGG, JLC-2023, WL-216-0062, at 7, SDNY, February 22nd, 2023. Allegations raised for the first time in an opposition brief cannot defeat a motion to dismiss because they do not amend a complaint. Further, the amended allegations regarding the corporate defendants are entirely dependent on unproven allegations and other complaints, not before this court. Those allegations referenced purported misconduct, some of which allegedly occurred in a corporate setting, but they allege nothing about the nature of the business of any corporate defendants or whether engaging in sexual misconduct was part and parcel of the job. Opposition brief, at 13 and 14. Finally, Plaintive's allegation that certain employees were fulfilling their boss's desires and therefore doing work within the scope of their employment are nothing but unsubstantiated words without any present legal significance. And the FAC fails to demonstrate how those employees were furthering their boss's desires. Instead the FAC alleges that they use their ties to leverage their own personal desires, having nothing to do with the corporate defendants. Accordingly, without reference to matters not before the court, which are unproven claims, Plaintive cannot allege any direct or indirect claim against the corporate defendants. Conclusion. For all the foregoing reasons, the Combs' defendants respectfully request the court grant and order dismissing the FAC with prejudice, together with such other and further relief as the court deems just improper. This was dated June 21, 2024, and it was signed by Jonathan Davis. Alright folks, that's going to do it for this document and this episode. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.