Katzenbach V Grant Case Study

1106 Words 5 Pages
Case: Katzenbach v. Grant 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46756 *; 2005 WL 1378976

Facts:

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.

Issues:

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

Related Documents