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.’
Transcription of Angelo Ferrara’s reply:
DEFENDANT ANGELO FERRARA’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendant Angelo Ferrara (“Angelo”) hereby respectfully submits the following Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Individual Defendants’ Motions For Summary Judgment. (Docket # 328).
Angelo joins in the Replies filed or to be filed by all Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to the Motions For Summary Judgment, Partial Summary Judgment, and/or Summary Adjudication filed or to be filed by all the Defendants in this lawsuit.
Based on the history of this case, other Defendants will brief the issues so thoroughly that Angelo does not believe it will be helpful or necessary to add to the mountain of paper that continues to accumulate in the case, so this Reply will be extremely brief and will attempt simply to provide some overall perspective.
Plaintiffs’ Statement Of Genuine Disputes Of Material Fact pertaining to Angelo (Docket # 340) (“Plaintiffs’ Statement Re Angelo”) confirms that there is no competent evidence of Angelo engaging in any wrongful behavior. Plaintiffs’ Statement Re Angelo engages in semantic quibbling, such as Plaintiffs can’t recall meeting Angelo versus Plaintiffs never meeting Angelo. I don’t recall meeting versus I didn’t meet is a distinction without a difference with respect to the determination of Angelo’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment.
If there were an Olympic sport of throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what would stick, Plaintiffs would take home the gold. For instance, the so-called Expert Declaration Of Peter Neushall (Docket # 380) informs the Court that 58% of African-Americans children do not know how to swim compared to 3 1 % of white children. (Docket #380, p. 4, 11. 24 – 27. OK, what’s the Court supposed to do with that factoid?
Plaintiffs’ strategy is to bury the Court with endless declarations and exhibits. Plaintiffs’ have submitted Plaintiffs’ Additional Material Facts pertaining to all the Individual Defendants (Docket # 329). Plaintiffs to a large extent seem to be attempting to relitigate their (denied) Motion For Class Certification. Plaintiffs have unleashed a tsunami of paper, but to what point? What does it add up to? Blakeman is rude?; Johnston a jerk? And none of it pertains to Angelo, who stands accused of surfing at Lunada Bay for fifty years without a single incident or act of wrongful conduct being perpetrated by him, who just wants to live his life and fix cars at his auto body shop rather than being engulfed in this maelstrom of an overpled and overblown federal case, with maritime jurisdiction established by a thread.
- 405.0 blakeman opposition to motion for admin relief
- 405.1 dieffenbach declaration in support of blakeman opposition
- 406.0 papayans opposition to motion for admin relief
- 406.1 havens declaration in support of papayans opposition
- 406.2 exhibits in support of papayans opposition to motion for admin relief
- 406.3 more exhibits in support of papayans opposition
- 407.0 frank and charlie ferrara opposition to motion for admin relief
- 407.1 bacon declaration in support of ferraras opposition to motion for admin relief
- 408.0 stipulation to take nonexpert depo of coastal protection rangers after discovery cut off
- 408.1 proposed order on stip to take depo of cpr after cutoff
- 409.0 angelo ferraro reply to plaintiffs oppo to motion for summary judgment
- 410.0 sang lee reply to plaintiffs oppo to motion for summary judgment
- 411.0 brant blakeman reply brief in support of motion for summary judgment
- 411.1 blakeman oppo to request for judicial notice
- 411.2 blakeman motion to strike
- 412.0 sang lee objections to evidence filed in support of oppo to motion for summary judgment
- 413.0 sang lee oppo to plaintiffs opp to motions for summary judgment
- 414.0 sang lee oppo to request for judicial notice
- 415.0 michael papayans reply to oppo to motion for summary judgment
- 416.0 jalian johnston reply to oppo to motion for summary judgment
- 417.0 sang lee response in oppo to plaintiffs additional material facts in oppo to indiv defendants motions for summary judgment