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.

You may recall that the other day, the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys case filed a bunch of paperwork having to do with defendant Sang Lee’s uncooperative attitude towards his discovery obligations, leading to the Honorable Rozella Oliver, magistrate judge in the case, issuing a minute order telling Sang Lee to get moving and hand over the goods.

Victor Otten’s most recent letter to Sang Lee’s attorneys noted that “… you have stated an intention to file a motion for summary judgement, this will be our last attempt to resolve this matter informally. Moreover, should you file a motion for summary judgement without providing adequate discovery responses, that will be a basis to oppose the motion.”

Well, today Sang Lee filed that very motion to dismiss, along with a bunch of supporting exhibits. His main argument seems to be that all of the plaintiffs have admitted that he personally didn’t do anything to them, so how can he be guilty of intimidating them away from the beach?

Of course, with respect to the allegation of conspiracy, and especially given that, according to Victor Otten, Sang Lee has withheld all the essential evidence, the fact, and it does seem to be a fact, that Sang Lee didn’t intimidate anyone in person seems pretty irrelevant. The plaintiffs’ theory seems to be that he coordinated via cell phone with the actual intimidaters, which certainly sounds like conspiracy to me. Well, as Victor Otten said on July 4, “…should you file a motion for summary judgement without providing adequate discovery responses, that will be a basis to oppose the motion.”

Don’t forget, the hearing on this motion and the parallel motion by Jeff Kepley and the City of PVE is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse. Maybe I’ll see you there! Meanwhile, turn the page for links to all the new pleadings.

• Sang Lee’s partial motion to dismiss — In which he states that because every plaintiff admitted that Sang Lee did not personally intimidate them he can’t be guilty of anything except possibly negligence. There’s no uncontroverted evidence to show he’s not guilty of that so he doesn’t ask for that allegation to be dismissed.
• Declaration of Tera Lutz in Support — This is one of Sang Lee’s attorneys stating on the record that all the following exhibits are in fact what they purport to be.
• Exhibit A in support — Excerpts from plaintiff Cory Spencer’s deposition.
• Exhibit B in support — Excerpts from plaintiff Diana Reed’s deposition.
• Exhibit C in support — Further excerpts from Diana Reed’s deposition.
• Exhibit D in support — Another copy of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of plaintiff’s request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal.
• Proposed order granting Sang Lee’s motion to dismiss — It’s evidently the custom in federal court to give the judge a proposal for what you’re asking to be done, which makes sense.
• Sang Lee’s statement of uncontroverted facts in support of motion — This is basically a summary of all the times that the plaintiffs admitted that Sang Lee didn’t personally do anything to them.

There were a couple other items filed, but they seem to be mostly formal and pretty much sans content, so I won’t bother you with them. Drop me a line if you want them and can’t find them elsewhere.

Image at head of post is a mashup of this palm tree, this hyena, and this surfer. The result is ©2017 MichaelKohlhaas.Org.