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.’
