Fsyco said:
Gades said:
There was an update last night - RESPONSE in Opposition re:33 MOTION to Amend/Correct1 Complaint filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10890330/Romine_v_Stanton
Sweet! Anyone looked at this yet? Probably just says "Well you're gonna dismiss this anyway, so who cares?"
After reading through this document, it looks like Sterling's lawyers went pretty hard against Romine's recent motion. Mainly in terms that Romine filed this correction while the motion to dismiss is still under review and the fact that it' wasting judicial resources. In addition to it, it doesn't change the legal principles for this case as well as nothing to do with the motion to dismiss. In the second paragraph, Romine motion to amend is useless because he wants to change the reference of "recognition of foreign judgements" to another references which is "one-year statute of limitation on defamation claims in Arizona". There are no foreign judgments at issue in this case and the statute of limitations is a defense to a defamation claim and not a separate legal cause of action. Hence, that is why they want to deny Romine's recent motion to amend.
Here is the full documentation for what was mentioned here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant James Stanton responds in opposition to Plaintiff?s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 33]. Defendant objects to the Motion for Leave to Amend because it is improper and untimely while a Motion to Dismiss is pending and also because the proposed amendment is futile.
A Motion to Dismiss was filed on May 10, 2016 [Doc. 19] and a decision is pending. Until an order is issued on the Motion to Dismiss it is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to consider an amendment to the complaint. The proposed amendment does not change
the legal principles and issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss and has no relevance at this
point in the proceedings. Only if the Court denies Defendant?s Motion to Dismiss should a
Motion for Leave to Amend be considered.
Additionally, the Motion to Amend should be denied because the proposed amendment is futile. With the amendment Plaintiff seeks to replace a reference to 28 U.S.C. ? 4101 (recognition of foreign defamation judgments) with a reference to A.R.S. ? 12-541 (one-year
statute of limitation on defamation claims in Arizona). Neither statute provides a cause of action for Plaintiff. There are no foreign judgments at issue in this case and the statute of limitations is a defense to a defamation claim and not a separate legal cause of action. The district court may deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment is futile and the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff are not a proper subject of relief. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The Motion for Leave to Amend should be denied because a motion to dismiss is pending and because the proposed amendment is futile. Defendant should not be required to spend resources responding to a futile and irrelevant complaint amendment while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. At a minimum any decision on the Motion for Leave to Amend should be deferred until after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, in the other lawsuit for Romine against 100 users, there are two new updates from yesterday:
9. Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP)
10. MOTION for Leave to File Magistrate Fome With Exception by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (MAP)
I haven't read much of this yet, but it seems that Romine filed this motion to explain why he couldn't file the Certification of Service since he couldn't get the Defendants information as well as the reason why he wanted the case dismissed due to his business being destroyed. Along with that, wants to discuss with Judge Willet about the lack of enforcement of ARS-13-02921 (which is the code reference of harassment I believe) and would like to take some time to discuss about it. Other than that, this is what I can understand so far for this and from the last paragraph, it seems he's trying to apologize for wasting the court's time and did not know this filing would've destroyed his business and, from what I can see, still wants to press charges against the 100 users.
UPDATE: On October 11, Judge Willett denied Romine's MOTION for Leave to File Magistrate Fome With Exception as moot since the case was dismissed.