 |
| DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY
UTAH- October 24, 2014 Diamond Ranch Academy vs. Susan Schofield/Michael Schofield
Diamond Ranch Academy's attorneys finally received their answer to their lawsuit filed against 'public' figures (real or imagined) Susan and Michael Schofield. Better late, than never!
OPINION:
In reading the Schofield's answer to allegations filed with the court, it makes one ponder... whatever is in the water in Utah--do not drink it.
All allegations are denied, claiming "public privilege, hyperbole," etc. "Trial by jury" is requested.
Indeed, if this goes to trial... so will 'Holocausting kids,' 'Japanese Internment Camps,' and 'Death Camps' along with other allegations inherent in Ms. Schofield's 'hyperbole' directed at Diamond Ranch Academy.
TAKE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
Although this has no Adam's Rib potential --this trial would be worth the flight... Did Abbott and Costello do a court gig? Wait... perhaps The Three Stooges.
THE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT:
*Modified into MS Word document.
Case
1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 12
David C. Reymann
(8495) (dreymann@parrbrown.com)
Rachel Lassig
Wertheimer (13893) (rwertheimer@parrbrown.com)
PARR BROWN GEE
& LOVELESS, P.C.
101 South 200
East, Suite 700
Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
Attorneys for
Defendants
Susan Schofield
and Michael Schofield
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH,
CENTRAL DIVISION
DIAMOND RANCH
ACADEMY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SUSAN SCHOFIELD,
an individual, and
MICHAEL
SCHOFIELD, an individual, Defendants.
ANSWER OF
DEFENDANTS SUSAN
SCHOFIELD AND
MICHAEL SCHOFIELD
Case No.
1:14-cv-00103-DBP
Judge Ted Stewart
The Schofields
respond to the specifically numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows,
specifically reserving the right to amend and/or supplement their responses as
further discovery and investigation may warrant.
[JURISDICTION]
3. The
allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction
of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any
response is required, the Schofields deny the allegations, including that this
Court has personal jurisdiction over them.
4. The
allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction
of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any
response is required, the Schofields deny that this Court has personal
jurisdiction over them.
2
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS
Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 12
[VENUE]
[PARTIES]
7. Admit.
8. Admit.
9. The allegation
in this paragraph does not require a response.
[FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS]
11. The
Schofields have not, to their knowledge, ever spoken to any employee or owner
of DRA, and therefore admit.
12. Deny.
15. Deny.
16. Deny.
3
Case
1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 12
18. Deny.
19. Deny.
[FIRST CAUSE OF
ACTION]
[(Libel against
all Defendants)]
22. Deny.
23. Deny.
24. Deny.
25. Deny.
26. Deny.
27. Deny.
28. Deny.
29. Deny.
31. Deny.
32. Deny.
33. Deny.
35. Deny.
36. Deny.
37. Deny.
38. Deny.
39. Deny.
40. Deny.
41. Deny.
42. Deny.
43. Deny.
[THIRD CAUSE OF
ACTION]
[(Slander against
all Defendants)]
46. Deny.
47. Deny.
48. Deny.
49. Deny.
50. Deny.
51. Deny.
52. Deny.
53. Deny.
5
[(Slander Per Se
against all Defendants)]
54. The
Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
56. Deny.
57. Deny.
58. Deny.
59. Deny.
60. Deny.
61. Deny.
62. Deny.
63. Deny.
64. Deny.
65. Deny.
66. Deny.
67. Deny.
[FIFTH CAUSE OF
ACTION]
6
72. Deny.
73. Deny.
74. Deny.
75. Deny.
76. Deny.
77. Deny.
THIRD DEFENSE
The Schofields
deny each and every allegation in the Complaint that is not expressly admitted
herein.
This Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the Schofields.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Venue in this
Court is improper.
SIXTH DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by laches.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by estoppel and/or waiver.
Case
1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 8 of 12
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred because the statements in the complained-of internet
radio broadcasts and other sources are true or substantially true.
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred because the statements in the complained-of internet
radio broadcasts and other sources are incapable of conveying defamatory
meaning, constitute nonactionable opinion, and/or constitute rhetorical
hyperbole.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by the common law fair comment and/or fair report
privileges.
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred under Utah Code § 45-2-3 and/or § 45-2-10 and/or
California Civil Code § 47.
THIRTEENTH
DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by the common law privilege concerning publications
made to protect the legitimate interest of the publisher.
FOURTEENTH
DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are privileged because the complained-of internet radio broadcasts
and other sources concerned matters of legitimate public interest and were
published by the Schofields without malice.
8
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred under Article I, sections 1 and 15 of the Utah Constitution
and/or under Article I, sections 1 and 2 of the California Constitution.
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by the incremental harm doctrine.
EIGHTEENTH
DEFENSE
DRA has suffered
no compensable damages as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct.
NINETEENTH
DEFENSE
DRA has failed to
mitigate any damages it claims to have sustained as a result of the Schofields’
alleged conduct.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
Some or all of
the damages of which DRA complains were the result of the fault and/or actions
of DRA itself, were the result of the fault and/or actions of persons or
entities over whom or over which the Schofields had no control, and/or were the
result of intervening causes.
Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under 47 U.S.C. § 230 and/or Utah Code § 45-2-5.
9
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred because DRA has failed to adequately plead and/or
cannot prove special damages.
TWENTY-THIRD
DEFENSE
At all times
relevant to this action the Schofields exercised the requisite degree of care and
prudence in undertaking any of the conduct of which DRA complains.
TWENTY-FOURTH
DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred because DRA is, or at all times relevant to this action
was, a general or limited-purpose public figure, and the Schofields did not act
with actual malice.
TWENTY-FIFTH
DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by the single publication rule.
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
Some or all of
DRA’s claims are barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
TWENTY-SEVENTH
DEFENSE
DRA’s claims are
without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith, but instead are brought
to chill the Schofields’ valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom
of speech. DRA’s claims arise from the Schofields’ acts in furtherance of their
right of free speech under the United States Constitution or the California
Constitution in connection with a public issue. As a result, DRA’s claims are
subject to a special motion to strike under California Code
The Schofields
hereby demand a jury for all issues triable thereto.
DATED this 24th
day of October 2014.
PARR BROWN GEE
& LOVELESS, P.C.
/s/ Rachel Lassig Wertheimer
David C. Reymann
Rachel Lassig
Wertheimer
Attorneys for
Defendants Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield
11
|
Friday, October 24, 2014
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. THE SCHOFIELDS - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF DEFAMATION ET AL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the update. I believe the main repercussion of the threat seems to be that they are no longer on LATalkradio.com so I'm not sure how that will effect them overall. Happy New Year!
ReplyDelete