OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JU])GMENT ON THE Opposition to Judgment on آ  mies governing the

1

2

3

MCFARLIN LLP Timothy G. McFarlin (State Bar No. 223378) Email; tim@mcfarlinlaw.com Jarrod Y. Nakano (State Bar No. 235548) Email: iarrod@mcfarlinlaw.com

4

5

6

7

8\

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-'.- '-` -28-

4 Park Plaza Suite 1025 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 544-2640 Fax: .(949) 336-7612

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN, JARROD Y. NAKANO, and GARY T. DOTE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE

MCFARLIN LLP, a Limited Liability Case No.: SC124187 Partnership; TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN, an Individual; JARROD Y. NAKANO, an Judge: Hon. Gerald Rosenberg Individual; and GARY T. DOTE an Department: K Individual,

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

v. ON THE PLEADINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.

ALADDIN DINAALI, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Hearing: Date: February 28, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. Gerald Rosenberg Department: K

Date Action Filed: May 18, 2015 Trial Date: July 31, 2017 . ~

--- - - - " - " -

-1-

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JU])GMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

1~ I

,|

of !

3~ I

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

~ 24

25

26

27

- - 28-

Plaintiffs MCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN, JARROD Y. NAKANO, and

GARY T. DOTE (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby submit their Opposition to Defendant

ALADDIN DINAALI'S ("Defendant") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the

"Opposition").

This Opposition is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, oral

argument, and any other evidence presented at the hearing.

DATED: February 14, 2017 MCFARLIN L

By:

Jarrod Y. Nakano Attorneys for Plaintiffs MCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN, JARROD Y. NAKANO, and GY T. DOTE

_- -_-_-___- ..----_- .--�------

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR MEN T ON THE PLEADINGS

I MEMOI;iANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs MCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN, JARROD Y. NAKANO, and

GARY T. DOTE (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this action to stop the fraudulent and libelous

internet websites created by Defendant ALADDIN DINAALI ("DINAALI" or "Defendant").

DINAALI has filed his motion for judgment on the pleadings (the "Motion"), based on

DINAALI'S position that complaint does not contain sufficient facts to constitute a cause of

action against DINAALI and that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the websites.

Plaintiffs have properly pied facts demonstrating each of their causes of action in the

complaint as DINAALI has willfully and maliciously created false and defamatory websites

targeting Plaintiffs in retaliation for opposing DINAALI'S illegal shakedown tactics.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny DINAALYS motion for judgement on

the pleadings in its entirety.

II. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS

As contained in the Complaint, Plaintiffs represented Michele and Mark Barlow (the

"Barlows") in a frivolous lawsuit filed by DINAALI against the Barlows (the "Underlying Suit").

See Complaint , 15 ("Compl").

In retaliation for representing the Barlows and filing a motion to change venue in the

Underlying Case, DINAALI proceeded to create the following fraudulent and defamatory

websites targeting Plaintiffs: garydote.corn, mcfarlinlaw.info, jarrodnakano.corn,

tirnothygmcfarlin.corn, and www.statebar.info (the "Defamatory Websites"). As alleged in the

Complaint, DINAALI created the websites to cause harm and embarrassment to Plaintiffs.

Com pl. ,, 23-30].

III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Legal Standard on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

26

27

-~- - - -28-

Section 438 of California Code of Civil Procedure sets forth the grounds and .procedures

for a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Having largely the same general purpose and ,-------. _--

function as a general demurrer, the standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings

-1-

MEMO~UM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-.~- - 28-

is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer. Accordingly, because of the

essential similarity between a general demurrer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the

mies governing the construction of pleadings in ruling on a general demurrer govern in the ruling

on a judgment on the pleadings. Except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure Section 438, the

mies governing demurrers apply.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is equivalent to a general demurrer except that the

motion is made after -the time for a demurrer has expired. Ludge Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin

Group Corp. , (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 602. The purpose of a demurrer is to attack the legal .

sufficiency of a complaint, or causes of action within a complaint. Wilner v. Sunset Life Ins. Co.

(1996) 78 Cal.App.4th 952, 958. The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts

pleaded state a valid cause of action, and thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff s

allegation must be accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the demurrer. Del E. Webb Corp v.

Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604. Also, a demurrer for uncertainty will

be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the Respondents cannot reasonably respond,

i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what

counts or claims are directed against him or her. KhouYy v. Maly 's of Cal. Inc. (1993) 14

Cal.App.4th 612, 616. Finally, in deciding a demurrer, complaints must be construed liberally,

with a view toward substantial justice between the parties. CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. h 452;

Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.

The allegations in the Complaint are clear and unambiguous. DINAALI'S Motion is

entirely nonsensical and has entirely no merit. California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10

requires a Complaint to contain: 1) a statement of the facts in ordinary language, and 2) a demand

for relief. Demurrers based on uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad

that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. A defendant cannot reasonably respond where he

or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or

claims are directed against him or her. Khoury, Supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 616.

DINAALI'S Motion is not well taken and should notable sustained. In. particular, --~~~~-------- ~ ~~- -~.~-.-

DINAALI created the defamatory websites and he is now seeking to hide from his actions.

-2-

MEMO~UM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1

2

3

Moreover, the issues raised in DINAALI'S Motion are entirely premature and are based on a

factual attack of the pleadings, which are improper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

B. Plaintiffs' Claims for Libel Per S.e and Preliminarv and Permanent Injunction are

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Prope"rly Pied. .

In his Motion, DINAALI claims that Plaintiffs have not stated facts sufficient to establish

a cause of action. See Motion pg. 7. However, as outlined in the four corners of the complaint,

Plaintiffs have properly alleged their claims for libel per so and preliminary and permanent

injunction.

Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, effigy, or other fixed

representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace