Tag Archives: Brant Blakeman

Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Announces That He Can Decide All Eleventy-Jillion Motions For Summary Judgment, Administrative Relief, Et Damn Cetera, Without Oral Arguments, Cancels September 5 Hearing

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Remember all those eleventy-jillion motions everyone in this “over-pled”1 behemoth of a case has filed over the last weeks? Like first every single defendant filed motions for summary judgment:

Then the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss all those motions because, they plausibly claimed, they were prevented from making an adequate response by the manifold discovery shenanigans perpetrated by the defense. Then all the defendants opposed that motion and of course the plaintiffs subsequently replied to that opposition. And arguments over every last jot and tittle of this stack of claims, counter-claims, cross-counter-claims, and so on and on and on, were scheduled to be heard on September 5.

Well, just this afternoon, Judge Otero announced that he will be deciding all of these motions, oppositions to these motions, replies to oppositions, etc., without oral argument. He therefore cancelled the hearing, and that, I suppose, is that. There’s no PDF associated with this kind of announcement, but you can read the whole thing after the break anyway.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Judge Otero Announces That He Can Decide All Eleventy-Jillion Motions For Summary Judgment, Administrative Relief, Et Damn Cetera, Without Oral Arguments, Cancels September 5 Hearing

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion For Administrative Relief With Another ‘Leventy-Dozen Pleadings Filed — Has Angelo Ferrara’s Lawyer Lost His Mind?

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Recall that about 10 days ago the Lunada Bay Boys plaintiffs filed a motion for administrative relief asking Judge Otero to deny the steaming heap of defense motions for summary judgment. Over the last few days the defendants have filed a ton of stuff in opposition to this motion and there are links to all of it after the break.

The most astonishing item, though, is Angelo Ferrara’s reply. There’s a complete transcription after the break, and it’s certainly worth reading. The words in the cartoon above are taken from this document, and here’s another sample: “If there were an Olympic sport of throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what would stick, Plaintiffs would take home the gold.” Not the least weird aspect of this document is that the lawyer refers to his client (Angelo) by his first name throughout.

Also worth taking a look at are:

  • More exhibits in support of Papayans’ motion — This has a list of the information that the plaintiffs hope(d) to get from Michael Papayans’ cell phone which, as you may recall, has been the subject of a long strange discovery trip of its own.
  • Stipulation to take nonexpert deposition of CPR — The time for depositions is done, but the defendants want to depose the Coastal Protection Rangers after the deadline, not sure why.
  • Blakeman reply brief“The case against Blakeman can be summed up in one sentence: On January 29, 2016, Blakeman allegedly surfed too close to Spencer, filmed Reed getting sprayed with drops of beer, and then, later that night, missed 61 calls from codefendant Sang Lee. There is no evidence linking Blakeman to any conspiracy without wild and unpermitted speculation.”
  • Jalian Johnston reply brief‘From the video of the incident: “fucking sexy baby…want to film it?”; “I seen you and I think I touched myself a little bit”; “I can do whatever I want.” As stated above, mere words cannot amount to an assault. This statement does not support the Plaintiff’s claim.’

Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion For Administrative Relief With Another ‘Leventy-Dozen Pleadings Filed — Has Angelo Ferrara’s Lawyer Lost His Mind?

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Oppose City Defendants Motion For Summary Judgement By Filing More Than 50 Documents Including A Bunch Of Deposition Excerpts And Jalian Johnston’s Freaking Text Messages!

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

So a couple weeks ago defendants the City of PVE and its seemingly erstwhile chief of police Jeff Kepley (collectively known as “the City defendants”) filed a motion asking the court for summary judgment. This was the first of a long line of such motions filed by all the other defendants. And this afternoon the plaintiffs responded to the City defendants’ motion with over fifty documents.

There’s no way I can describe all of these individually, and I even had to write a script to generate links for all of them, which you can find after the break. The links are functional but not pretty, and you can find them with highly selected brief descriptions after the break.

The documents include tons of fascinating deposition excerpts from many of the defendants along with, finally, Jalian Johnston’s freaking text messages, which are about as stupid as one would expect. There’s also a transcript of part of the infamous Brant Blakeman video. This is essentially Aladdin’s cave, and I’m sorry I can’t provide more detail, but read, read, read, and enjoy!
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Oppose City Defendants Motion For Summary Judgement By Filing More Than 50 Documents Including A Bunch Of Deposition Excerpts And Jalian Johnston’s Freaking Text Messages!

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman File Motions For Summary Judgment, Blakeman Makes Highly Rapey Argument That Johnston Couldn’t Have Assaulted Diana Reed By Spraying Beer On Her Cause She Was Smiling The Whole Time, Plaintiffs Ask For Extra Time To Respond To Barrage Of Motions

Jalian Johnston spraying beer on Diana Reed next to the Lunada Bay Boys fort. Brant Blakeman: They taught me at the Palos Verdes School Of Bro-fessional Surf Thuggery that smiles equal consent…”
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Earlier today I wrote about a bunch of filings in the Lunada Bay Boys case, but clearly I wrote too soon. Quite soon after I published that post, a bunch more paper hit PACER. This includes motions for summary judgment from defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman. There’s also a request from the plaintiffs for a time extension to respond to all these zillions of defense motions for summary judgment. A major argument therein is, as promised, the fact that Jalian Johnston won’t be deposed until July 28 and the unextended deadline for the plaintiffs to respond is July 31.

If there’s an award for rapiest pleading filed in federal court, Blakeman’s motion is gonna be a strong contender. He actually claims that even though Jalian Johnston did spray beer on Diana Reed, she was smiling the whole time so it can’t be assault:

Plaintiffs’ case against moving party Brant Blakeman consist solely of Spencer’s claim that Blakeman surfed too close to him on one occasion at Lunada Bay and Reed’s claim that Blakeman videotaped her at the patio structure at the Bay when defendant Alan Johnston opened a can of beer that sprayed some drops on her arm.

These factual claims fall far short of establishing a violation of the Bane Act by Blakeman, which requires violent acts, physical threats, coercion, or intimidation resulting in fear of injury or harm and, thereby, prevents them from exercising a constitutional right. With respect to the incident in which Blakeman did nothing more than videotape Reed, who, by the way, was photographing Blakeman and others with her own camera and invited a photographer from the LA Times, Reed can be seen throughout the video smiling, smirking, and in no apparent distress. Indeed, she spent over 60 minutes at the bay and made no attempt to leave the patio structure

Anyway, turn the page for links to the new filings. I’m super-busy with another project, to be announced soonest,1 so no time for more than that. Also, don’t forget that the hearing for all of these defense motions for summary judgment is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman File Motions For Summary Judgment, Blakeman Makes Highly Rapey Argument That Johnston Couldn’t Have Assaulted Diana Reed By Spraying Beer On Her Cause She Was Smiling The Whole Time, Plaintiffs Ask For Extra Time To Respond To Barrage Of Motions

Share

Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver To Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs And Defendant Brant Blakeman Re Discovery Matters: You Are The Grownups In The Room So Start Acting Like It Or We’re Just Gonna Have To Have Another Damn Phone Call!

Earlier today Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver held a telephonic conference with attorneys for the Lunada Bay Boys plaintiffs and also defendant Brant Blakeman. They’re evidently still squabbling over discovery matters. This may be the same dispute I wrote about in January or it may be something else. It has to do, though, with Blakeman claiming that the plaintiffs’ responses to his supplemental interrogatories were inadequate. It’s possible that this disagreement is the one described in these two docket items:

Here is a copy of Rozella Oliver’s order and also there’s a transcription after the break.
Continue reading Magistrate Judge Rozella Oliver To Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs And Defendant Brant Blakeman Re Discovery Matters: You Are The Grownups In The Room So Start Acting Like It Or We’re Just Gonna Have To Have Another Damn Phone Call!

Share

Plaintiffs: Your Honor, We Respectfully Request That You Pay No Mind To Brant Blakeman’s Request For Judicial Notice Because It Is Late, It Is Irrelevant, It Is Not On Point, It Constitutes Unprofessional Subterfuge, And It Is Stinking Amateurish Bullshit Of The First Water

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.

Oh dear, friends, more drama swirls around the Lunada Bay Boys case.1 You may recall that, the other day, defendant Brant Blakeman asked the Judge to take judicial notice of the fact that proposed class representative Diana Reed had a default judgement against her in L.A. County Superior Court for a bunch of torts including one or more flavors of fraud and that that fact made her somehow unsuitable to represent the class of plaintiffs in this case. Tonight the plaintiffs’ response hit PACER, facetiously but accurately summarized in the headline, along with some other stuff, and I have copies for you along with descriptions, find it all after the break.
Continue reading Plaintiffs: Your Honor, We Respectfully Request That You Pay No Mind To Brant Blakeman’s Request For Judicial Notice Because It Is Late, It Is Irrelevant, It Is Not On Point, It Constitutes Unprofessional Subterfuge, And It Is Stinking Amateurish Bullshit Of The First Water

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Ordered To Reveal Names Of Witnesses Including, Presumably, The Weasel. Meanwhile, Blakeman Is Ordered To Cough Up Videos, Etc. Only From 2013 To Present. Perhaps The Meet-And-Confer Didn’t Work Out, As A Telephonic Conference Is Scheduled For Wednesday.

Why is it so hard for everyone to believe that my actual real-life name actually is “The Weasel”?!!?!
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.

A quick note to announce a recent order in the Lunada Bay Boys case that hit PACER last week and somehow I missed it. It’s an order by magistrate judge Rozella Oliver to compel discovery and production, binding on both plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs are ordered, in part, like this:

Plaintiffs are ordered to identify witnesses in response to Interrogatory Numbers 1 through 12. For each interrogatory, Plaintiffs shall identify the responsive witnesses by name. For each witness, Plaintiffs shall specify whether that witness is represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel, or, if Plaintiffs know, by other counsel. For each witness, Plaintiffs shall provide contact information for that witness or state unambiguously that Plaintiffs do not have contact information for that witness.

This seems to be in response to interrogatories propounded by defendant Blakeman, copies of which can be found in this declaration starting at page 92. Famously, one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses seems to be known only as “The Weasel.” Presumably, in response to this order, The Weasel’s true name will have to be revealed.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Plaintiffs Ordered To Reveal Names Of Witnesses Including, Presumably, The Weasel. Meanwhile, Blakeman Is Ordered To Cough Up Videos, Etc. Only From 2013 To Present. Perhaps The Meet-And-Confer Didn’t Work Out, As A Telephonic Conference Is Scheduled For Wednesday.

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman Raises Questions About Proposed Class Representative Diana Reed’s “credibility and interest in litigating the case” On Basis Of Default Judgment Against Her For Fraud Involving, Inter Alia, Aerosmith Concert in Mexico City

If you want to know what Aerosmith has to do with anything you have to read the blog post!
Oh dear. Hitting PACER just now is Defendant Brant Blakeman’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. It seems that plaintiff Diana Reed was sued in LA County Superior Court for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and a few other such torts, arising out of a music promotion business run by Reed and her husband Gabe. Blakeman is arguing that these allegations, along with the fact that Reed didn’t defend the suit, make her unfit to represent the class of people harmed in the Lunada Bay Boys case.

According to the complaint in the fraud suit,1 the Reeds accepted tens of thousands of dollars from the business manager of some band in exchange for the band being allowed to open for an Aerosmith concert in Mexico City and to go on some rock tour that the Reeds were promoting. None of this ever happened, the band didn’t get its money back, they sued, the Reeds didn’t defend the case, and the court entered a default judgment for more than $440,000.

Bay Boys defendant Blakeman is asking the court to take judicial notice of the complaint and the default judgment against Reed as part of his argument that she’s not moral enough to represent the class of people harmed by the actions of the Bay Boys. The reasoning runs like this:2
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman Raises Questions About Proposed Class Representative Diana Reed’s “credibility and interest in litigating the case” On Basis Of Default Judgment Against Her For Fraud Involving, Inter Alia, Aerosmith Concert in Mexico City

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman’s Attorney Urges Federal Court To Treat Plaintiffs’ Claims Skeptically Given, E.G., With Respect To “Nefarious Charge” That Blakeman Sold Drugs Out Of The Bay Boys’ Fort, ‘the only witness is someone named “the Weasel”.(!)’

Why do lawyers always think that saying my name is enough to impeach my testimony? At least I’m not freaking Rumpelstiltskin!
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit.

This is just a brief note to memorialize the fact that, in response to the big pile of stuff filed over the weekend by plaintiffs’ attorney Victor Otten in the Lunada Bay Boys suit, Brant Blakeman’s attorney Richard Dieffenbach has filed this reply, which is written with a certain je ne sais quoi, as they say. For instance, in his interrogatories to the plaintiffs, Brant Blakeman propounded1 the following question:2

IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS that have knowledge of any facts that support your contention in paragraph 18 of the Complaint that BRANT BLAKEMAN “sell[s] market[s] and use[s] illegal controlled substances from the Lunada Bay Bluffs and the Rock Fort” and for each such PERSON identified state all facts you contend are within the PERSON’s knowledge.

And after more than a page of objections as to why this question is improper and they don’t have to answer it and so on, the plaintiffs say they’re gonna answer just a little bit anyway, and here’s what they answer:

In addition to each defendant named in his individual capacity and other person identified in Plaintiffs’ Initial and Supplemental Disclosures, and the evidence submitted in support of Plaintiffs
[sic/ motion for class certification, Responding Party identifies the following individuals: and individual that is goes [sic] by the name The Weasel.

Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman’s Attorney Urges Federal Court To Treat Plaintiffs’ Claims Skeptically Given, E.G., With Respect To “Nefarious Charge” That Blakeman Sold Drugs Out Of The Bay Boys’ Fort, ‘the only witness is someone named “the Weasel”.(!)’

Share

Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant “Blakeman Looked Possessed Or Possibly On Drugs”: Plaintiffs’ Attorney Otten Alleges Bay Boys Defendants Blakeman, Johnston Withheld Evidence, Gave Wrong Phone Passwords Necessitating Court-Ordered Phone Cracking, Committed Other Evidentiary Shenanigans

“Blakeman looked possessed or possibly on drugs. His behavior got more bizarre throughout the morning.”
For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on the suit.

Well, when I decided to start collecting the pleadings in Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys, I had no idea how much material it was going to involve. By the way, the full collection is available here on Archive.Org. In any case, a bunch more stuff hit PACER last night. It consists of allegations by Victor Otten, plaintiffs’ attorney, that Bay Boys defendants Brant Blakeman and Alan Johnston are stonewalling court-ordered discovery and that “there is a clear pattern emerging that the individual defendants are withholding and/or destroying evidence and misusing the discovery process.”

There are links and brief descriptions of the new material after the break, as always, but first I have some interesting details about defendant Alan Johnston’s cell phone. It seems that on December 12, 2016, the magistrate judge, Hon. Rozella Oliver, issued an order to compel defendant Alan Johnston to hand over two cell phones and corresponding passwords to the plaintiffs:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT that Mr. Johnston overnight his cell phone(s), both his old, water damaged phone and his current phone to his counsel. Mr. Carey1 is directed to hand over the cell phone(s) to Todd Stefan at Setec Investigations, 8391 Beverly Blvd #167, Los Angeles, CA 90048, the party chosen by Plaintiffs to conduct the examination of the phone.

Mr. Otten and Mr. Carey shall reasonably cooperate to agree upon a set of search parameters to guide Mr. Stefan’s forensic investigation of the phone(s), including text messages, contacts, photographs, and videos by December 14, 2016. If the parties cannot agree upon a set of search parameters, they shall submit their proposed search parameters to the Court by December 14, 2016. Mr. Johnston is ordered to cooperate as necessary with Mr. Stefan with respect to passwords. Defendant Alan Johnston is ordered to pay the cost of the forensic investigation within 10 days of his attorney being sent a statement.

But according to a declaration filed last night by plaintiffs’ attorney Victor Otten, the process is not proceeding as planned. It seems that the phone wasn’t actually water-damaged, that the handed-over passwords were wrong, thus requiring the forensic investigator to brute-force the phone, and many more similar such shenanigans:
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant “Blakeman Looked Possessed Or Possibly On Drugs”: Plaintiffs’ Attorney Otten Alleges Bay Boys Defendants Blakeman, Johnston Withheld Evidence, Gave Wrong Phone Passwords Necessitating Court-Ordered Phone Cracking, Committed Other Evidentiary Shenanigans

Share