Documents

LIBERI v BELCHER, et al. (N.D. TX) - 202.2 - Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief) - gov.uscourts.txnd.205641.202.2

Description
Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief) - 12/23/2011 202[RECAP] RESPONSE filed by EVELYN ADAMS, Philip J Berg, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, The Law Offices of Philip J Berg re: 198[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 185[RECAP] Response/Objection, 186[RECAP] MOTION for Protective Order ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief); Appendix; Proposed Order; and Certificate of Service MOTION for Protective Order ; Memorandum of Points and Authoriti (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents, # 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief), # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service) (Berg, Philip) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
Categories
Published
of 13
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  1Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Resp. in Opp to the Hale Defendants Motion to Strike, DN 198 Law Offices of: PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Identification No. 09867555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659Email: philjberg@gmail.comA ttorney in Pro Se EVELYN ADAMS, Plaintiff c/o PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659Email: philjberg@gmail.com  In Pro Se LISA OSTELLA, and GO EXCEL GLOBAL, Plaintiffsc/o PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659Email: philjberg@gmail.com  In Pro Se LISA LIBERI, Plaintiff c/o PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Ph: (610) 825-3134Fx: (610) 834-7659Email: philjberg@gmail.com  In Pro Se U.S.DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASAMARILLO DIVISION  _____________________________________________ LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,vs.LINDA SUE BELCHER, et al, Defendants.:::::::::CIVIL ACTIONCase No. 2:11-cv-00090-JHonorable Mary Lou Robinson Case 2:11-cv-00090-J Document 202-2 Filed 12/23/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID 4667  2Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Resp. in Opp to the Hale Defendants Motion to Strike, DN 198 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS andAUTHORITIES (BRIEF)IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITIONTO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKEPLAINITFFS OPPOSITION TOTHE HALE’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DOCKET NO. 185 andMOTIONFOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, DOCKET NO. 186ARGUMENTI.FACTS: 1.A Motion to Strike is not a proper tool to use when one is unhappywith the opposing party’s response and/or answer to a Motion, or the relief beingsought by a moving party. There certainly are not any grounds in which to moveto Strike the Plaintiffs Response in Oppositionto Defendants Edgar and CarenHale [“the Hale’s”] Motion to Dismiss. Particularly in light of the fact the Courthas already Denied the Hale’s Motion to Dismiss[“MTD”]. See Docket No. 196filed December 13, 2011.2.Furthermore, no grounds exist to strike Plaintiffs Motion for aProtective Order[“MPO”]. To date, the Hale Defendants have not timely filed anopposition and instead file their frivolous Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for aProtective Order on the basis that all Plaintiffs are using Mr. Berg’s address.3.All Plaintiffs participated in the Opposition, Docket No. [“DN”] 185and Plaintiffs MPO,DN 186, and all parties gave authorization for their signaturesto be input electronically. See the Declarations of Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi,Docket No.188-3 filed August 31, 2011 atAppendix “1”, pages 1-20; Declaration of Philip J. Case 2:11-cv-00090-J Document 202-2 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID 4668  3Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Resp. in Opp to the Hale Defendants Motion to Strike, DN 198 Berg, Esquire,Docket No. 188-4 filed August 31, 2011 atAppendix “2”, pages 21-26; Declaration of Evelyn Adams,Docket No. 188-5 filed August 31,2011 atAppendix “3”, pages 27-80; andLisa Ostella,Docket No. 188-6 filed August 31,2011 atAppendix “4”, pages 81-99. Defendant then argues that all the Plaintiffsare using Mr. Berg’s address.4.As shown in Plaintiffs Opposition, DN 185 and their MPO, DN 186,Plaintiffs do have their contact information in care of Mr. Berg. This is due to theharassment Plaintiffs have received from the Defendants, especially DefendantHale. The nasty, cussing, accusatory, threatening emails that Defendant Hale hassent to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs do not want to be contacted by Defendantsdirectly. There has also been the issue of the Defendants “altering”, “forging” and“manipulating” documents from their srcinal versions and creating documentswhich have never been filed, proof of which is located in this Court’s files.5.The Hale Defendants then claim that Mr. Berg was Ordered to obtainlocal counsel and Plaintiffs want everything to go through Mr. Berg. The issueregarding Mr. Berg’s  Pro Hac Vice status hasbeen decided by the Court. See DN195 filed December 13, 2011. As the Court noted, all Plaintiffs have been signingtheir filings in  pro se . Case 2:11-cv-00090-J Document 202-2 Filed 12/23/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID 4669  4Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Resp. in Opp to the Hale Defendants Motion to Strike, DN 198 6.The Hale Defendants Motion to Strike isfrivolousand their request pertaining to Plaintiffs Opposition to their MTD, DN 185is moot as the Hale’sMTDhas been denied by the Court. See DN 196 filed December 13, 2011.7.It is important to note, Plaintiffs are not  being served, as claimed inDefendants Edgar and Caren Hale’s certificate of service with all the documents being submitted to the Court by the Defendants. For instance, Defendant Edgar Hale attempted to file a Motion to Dismiss this case on behalf of Defendant LindaS. Belcher. Plaintiffs learned of this attempted filing when this Court ruled itwould not consider it, see DN 197 filed December 13, 2011. Although DefendantsEdgar and Caren Hale’s Motion to Strike is dated in August 2011, Plaintiffs onlyreceived notice of the Hale Defendants Motion on December 13, 2011, through theECF Federal Filing system, when the Court actually filed Defendants Motion.Plaintiffs did not receive service by the Defendants.8.For the reasons outlined herein, Plaintiffs respectfully Request thisCourt to Deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike. II.DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKEIS IN VIOLATIONOFTHE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE andTHISCOURT’S LOCAL RULES andMUST BE STRICKEN: 9.Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [“  Fed. R. Civ. P. ”] 7(b)(1)(B)requires the moving party to “state with particularity the grounds for seeking theorder”. Defendants failed to do so and just ask the Court to StrikePlaintiffs Case 2:11-cv-00090-J Document 202-2 Filed 12/23/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID 4670
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x