Beyond The Horizon
Diddy Do It: Diddy's Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Dismissal (Part 1) (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 7:54)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.62.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 12m
- Broadcast on:
- 23 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's the easiest choice you can make? Window instead of middle seat? Picking a vendor who sends a great gift basket, outsourcing business tasks you hate. What about selling with Shopify? (clicking) Whether you're selling a little or a lot, Shopify helps you do your thing. However you touching, Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. From the launch your online shop stage to the first real life store stage, all the way to the did we just hit a million order stage? Shopify's there to help you grow. Whether you're selling scented soap or offering outdoor outfits, Shopify helps you sell. Wherever and whatever you're selling, Shopify's got you covered. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com/try. Go to Shopify.com/try now to grow your business. No matter what stage you're in, Shopify.com/try. (speaking in foreign language) (beeping) (speaking in foreign language) (beeping) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're gonna dive back into those Diddy Corps documents and we're gonna take a look at the Jane Doe reply memorandum of law and further support of the Combs defendant motion to dismiss the amended complaint. So this is Diddy and company responding to Jane Doe. Civil action number 23-CV-10628 JGLC. Jane Doe Plaintiff versus Sean Combs, Harv Pierre, the third assailant, Daddy's House Recordings Incorporated and Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Incorporated. Reply memorandum of law and further support of the Combs defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Reply statement. The Combs defendants respectfully submit this reply memorandum in further support of their motion to dismiss the FAC. Plaintiff's decade old VGM claim is time barred and she purports to pursue the FAC under the VGM's claim revival provision in section 10-1105. However, under the preemption doctrine, a New York City Council local law cannot lengthen the NY legislature's state law claim revival window, which was previously closed shut. Reviving stale claims is an extreme exercise of legislative power and the NY legislature previously decided that Plaintiff's window to bring her claim closed on August 14th, 2021. Plaintiff has no recourse under the New York City local law, which must yield to the state's legislative judgment on a limitations period for asserting claims. The only court to address this issue held consistent with settled principles of preemption doctrine that New York City local law cannot lengthen the NY legislature's state law claims revival window, which had lapsed. C. Bellino versus Tallarico, number 24-C.V. -0712, L.A.K., 2024 WL, 1344075, SDNY February 21st, 2024. The rationale of Bellino is directly applicable here because the FAC was filed after the deadline set by the NY legislature, it's time barred. And New York City local law does not extend the deadline. Plaintiff has no case law to the contrary. Plaintiff's arguments against the corporate defendants are similarly unavailing. The opposition reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the presumption against statutory retroactivity. Plaintiff contends the doctrine does not apply to her application of a 2022 amendment that would allow her to pursue a decades old claim. But the unfairness and prejudice that would follow from holding a party liable under a law that was nonexistent when the alleged misconduct occurred is precisely what the presumption against retroactivity guards against and why in this case, Plaintiff's claim is foreclosed. Lastly, Plaintiff's negative assertion that the individual defendant's alleged misconduct is within the scope of employment because the corporate defendants are in the very business of sexual misconduct is contrived and concusory. Not only is this nonsensical theory absent in any allegation in the FAC, which makes such arguments impermissible, but it also predicated on unproven allegations from unrelated lawsuits against some of the corporate defendants, which lawsuits alleged nothing about their businesses serving as conduits for sexual misconduct. For these reasons, the FAC is defective as a matter of law and must be dismissed. The VGM's claim revival provision is preempted by the CVA and the ASA. Plaintiff erroneously contends the VGM's claim revival provision is not preempted because the VGM is an independent cause of action, whereas the CVA is a mechanism to revive previously extinguished causes of action for a finite period concerning claims at remedy sexual offenses against children, opposition in brief at three and five. But that makes no difference. The CVA does not preempt all VGM claims. Instead, as explained in defendants moving brief, the CVA, a state statute preamps the New York City, local laws claim revival provision in section 10-1105. Indeed, Plaintiff has conceded that the VGM's claim revival provision encroaches upon the CVA. Compare opposition brief at three. The city council amended the VGM to revive VGM claims that had already expired with ID at four. The CVA revived the statute of limitations for his civil claims related to sexual offenses against minors. Plaintiff's suggestion that the CVA did not revive Plaintiff's VGM claims is wrong. Opposition brief at five. The CVA applies to every civil claim or cause of action arising from alleged conduct, which would constitute a sexual offense. And why CPLR section 214G, emphasis added. That includes VGM claims for sexual assault, as well as claims established by other local laws. CEGSA versus Bell, index number 95027920212023WL865313. Superior Court, New York, New York County, December 14, 2023, discussing VGM claims brought under CVA. Doe versus NYC Department of Education, 669F.supp 3D-160-168, Eastern District of New York 2023, noting CVA revived claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, the U.S. United States Department of Education, the U.S. U.S. Department of Education 669F.supp 3D-160-168, Eastern District of New York 2023, noting CVA revived claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly, once the CVA's revival window closed, plaintiff could no longer bring her time barred claim. The CVA controls all claims within its ambit, notwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary, and why CPLR section 214G. plaintiff misinterprets the meaning of notwithstanding in the CVA when she argues that it makes clear that the state legislature acknowledged that other limitation periods may apply to claims that fall under the statute. Opposition brief at four. The opposite is true. Notwithstanding means despite, in spite of, blacks law dictionary 11 edition 2019. The NY legislature used notwithstanding to express its intent and commandment that the CVA exclusively controls despite any contrary statute of limitations provision that extends a claim including the VGM's claim revival provision. Next, plaintiff erroneously contends that the preemption issue here has already been decided in her favor. In fact, neither Engleman first rove, 194 AD, 3D 26, first department 2021, nor doe versus gooding, number 20 dash CV dash 06569 PAC 2022 WL 1104750 SDNY April 13th, 2022. Address the preemption argument raised by the Combs defendants. Engleman and gooding failed to discuss the CVA and Engleman has decided before the VGM's claim revival provision wasn't acted. Engleman decided a different issue altogether. Whether the seven year statute of limitations in the VGM was preempted by the one year statute of limitations for assault under CPLR section 215(3) or the three year statute of limitations for liabilities imposed by statute under CPLR section 214(2) the Engleman court held that neither of those statutes preempts the VGM section 215(3) was in applicable because the VGM's claim is in the nature of a civil rights cause of action rather than for assault. And in section 214(2) did not apply because CPLR section 201 states that the times listed in CPLR article two apply unless a different time is prescribed by law. 194 AD.3D at 30 and 32. Neither rationale above applies here. The question is whether the CVA which briefly revived time bar VGM claims preempts the VGM from reviving those claims again. The Engleman court never mentioned the CVA which explicitly applies notwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary and why CPLR section 214(g). Thus Engleman did not address the similarities between the claim revival provision in the VGM and the CVA. The New York City Council passed a claim revival provision less than a year after the CVA's window closed incorporating language from the CVA. The VGM cannot revive claims that were revived once before and then expired again. Dover's gooding is similarly in opposite. The court there also did not discuss preemption of the claim revival provision. It explicitly stated that the claim revival provision was irrelevant because unlike plaintiff's claim the claim in gooding never expired. 2022 WL 110 4750 at three. Plaintives claim would need revival because it never lapsed in the first place. The only court to address the preemption question presented here squarely held at the CVA and the ASA preemptive VGM's claim revival provision in section 10-1105. Bellino 2024 WL 134 4075 at one. The limitations provision of the VGM is preempted by the state's adoption of the CVA and ASA. Plaintives claim the judge Kaplan in a second decision clarified why the case before him was time barred and that it was not supposed to be based on preemption misstates Bellino opposition brief at nine. That is because Judge Kaplan decided two motions. In his second decision the court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint on unrelated grounds. See Davis declaration, example C. That decision had no bearing on Judge Kaplan's first decision to dismiss the complaint based on the CVA's preemption of the VGM's claim revival provision. Bellino the only decision cited by either party addressing the specific preemption issue here mandates dismissal of plaintiff's time barred claim. All right we're gonna wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're gonna pick up with the VGM's 2022 amendment is not retroactive and must cannot resuscitate plaintiff's claim. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.