Tag Archives: Richard Dieffenbach

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

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