The Plaintiffs, Katzenbach and Osuna filed a lawsuit against Defendant Grant over a film and
book rights. Grant owns a website called “thenightexposed” (www.thenightexposed.net). The
Plaintiffs claim that Grant caused problems with negotiations with Sony Pictures and the USA
Network. Plaintiff further claims that Grant sent a letter calling Osuna book a fake and made
other defamatory articulations about the Plaintiffs on his website.
1. Does the court have jurisdiction over the Defendant?
2. Should Grant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be granted?
3. Does the Plaintiff state a claim …show more content…
The Plaintiff in this case has failed to form a prima facie case that either general or
specific jurisdiction exists over the Defendant. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was granted and the Defendant was
given leave to amend. In order for a District Court to hear a case it must have jurisdiction. If the
Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction it must dismiss the case.
2. The court requires not, in any case, acknowledge as genuine statements that negate matters
appropriately subject to legal notice or by display. Nor is the court required to acknowledge as
genuine statements that are only conclusory, outlandish reasoning’s of truth, or nonsensical
derivations. As in “Sprewell v. Brilliant State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (ninth Cir. 2001)
(references excluded). “For instance, matters of open record might be considered deprived. R.
Evid. 201, including pleadings, orders and different papers documented with the court or records
of authoritative bodies.” See- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (ninth Cir. 2001).
“Finishes of law, conclusory claims, absurd surmising’s, or outlandish reasoning’s of …show more content…
Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (ninth Cir.
1981). The Court states that affidavits are not necessary for claims of defamation nor is it needed
be in writing to make claims of defamation.
3. Regardless of whether a published declaration of speech is sensibly defenseless of an
understanding that infers provable statements of actuality is an issue of law for the court to
answer. The question whether any kind of speech has a defamatory significance or is of
irrelevant conclusion (which is not noteworthy), where the court found, "the court looks to
whether the sensible individual would translate the statement, taken as is, to infer a bogus
testimony of truth." Isuzu Motors, Ltd. v. Purchasers Union of United States, 12 F. Supp. 2d
1035, (C.D. Cal. 1998) (referring to Norse v. Henry Holt and Co., 991 F.2d 563, 566 (ninth Cir.
1993); see additionally Norse, 991 F.2d at 566 ("To recognize whether an announcement has a
defamatory importance, we translate it from the outlook of the normal individual, judging the
statement not in the scope, but rather inside the setting in which it is made."). The court found
several of the statements to be defamatory in