1

2

3

MCFARLIN LLPTimothy G. McFarlin (State Bar No. 223378)Email; tim@mcfarlinlaw.comJarrod 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 1025Irvine, California 92614Telephone: (949) 544-2640Fax: .(949) 336-7612

Attorneys for PlaintiffsMCFARLIN 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.: SC124187Partnership; TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN,an Individual; JARROD Y. NAKANO, an Judge: Hon. Gerald RosenbergIndividual; and GARY T. DOTE an Department: KIndividual,

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

v. ON THE PLEADINGS; MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES.

ALADDIN DINAALI, an Individual; andDOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

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

Date Action Filed: May 18, 2015Trial 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. NakanoAttorneys for PlaintiffsMCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G.MCFARLIN, JARROD Y. NAKANO, andGY 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, or

which causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure a person in his

or her occupation. CAL. CIV. CODE g 45. In addition, a Plaintiff must also plead and prove the

requisite degree of fault. See Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986) 475 U.S. 767, 778.

In this case, it is clear that DINAALI's websites are defamatory.

1. Dinaali's Defamatorv Websites Contain Numerous False and Unnrivileeed

16

17

Statements Regarding Plaintiffs.

|19 1

20\

21

22

-' 23

24

25

26

27

28

A publication must contain a false statement of fact to give rise to liability for defamation.

CAL. CIV. CODE g 45; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600. The

dispositive question is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published

statements implies a false factual allegation. A court examines the communication in light of the

context in which it is published, the occasion of the utterance, the persons addressed, the purpose

to be served, and all of the circumstances surrounding the publication. Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard

Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 958, 971. In this case, DINAALI'S websites are riddled with false

statements.

In DINAALI'. s websites, DINAALI's falsely states that McFarlin LLP, Timothy G. ..

McFarlin, Jarrod Y. Nakano, and Gary T. Dote are all white collar criminals, who aid and abet

criminals disengage in criminal activities. Com pl. ,, 25-29]. As stated in Plaintiffs' Complaint,-- ~-,-

all of these statements are patently false and are completely fabricated by DINAALI. Com pl. ,,

-3-

MEMO~UM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

-I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

29-30].

In addition, DINAALI states that there are pending criminal and state bar proceedings

initiated-against McFarlin LLP, Timothy G. McFarlin, Jarrod Y. Nakano, and Gary T. Dote.

Com pl. cg, 25-29]. Similarly, as specified in Plaintiffs' Complaint, these statements made by

DINAALI do not contain a scintilla of truth. Com pl. cllcll 29-30].

Plaintiffs have alleged in their Complaint that DINAALI specifically created the

defamatory websites in retaliation against Plaintiffs for defending the Barlows in the underlying

lawsuit filed by DINAALI. Com pl. cl|ell 23-24]. DINAALI threatened to take action against Gary

Dote for filing a motion to change venue and DINAALI created numerous websites against the

related parties and their counsel in the underlying action. Com pl. cllcll23-29]. DINAALI created

these websites to harm those that opposed his illegal and unauthorized actions. Com pl. c1Ic1129-30]

There is no doubt that DINAALI has made false representations on his websites regarding

Plaintiffs.

2. Dinaali's Websites are Publications Made to the General Public

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-` ` 28-

Concerning Plaintiffs.

The publication must be by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation.

CAL. CIV. CODE h 45. Generally, publication is the dissemination of the written defamatory

material to someone other than the subject matter of the defamation. Live Oak Publ 'g Co. v.

Cohagan (1991) 234 Cal.3d 1277. The statement at issue must specifically refer to the plaintiff,

although it may do so by inference rather than by name. B/atty v. New York Times Co. (1986) 42

Cal.3d 1033, 1042-43. DINAALI'S statements contained in his websites are specific as to each

of the named Plaintiffs.

DINAALI specifically created misleading and defamatory websites for each Plaintiff. In

addition, each website is specific to the false statements for Timothy G. McFarlin, Jarrod Y.

Nakano and Gary T. Dote. Com pl. cl|cl{ 26-28]. While the fake state bar website and McFarlin

LLP websites contain false statements regarding all of the Plaintiffs. Com pl. c1125].

Clearly, 'DINAALI'S Defamatory Websites are clear publications made to the public and

concerning Plaintiffs.-4-

MEMO~UM OF POINTS ANI) 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

3. Dinaali's Statements Exposed Plaintiffs to Disgrace and Humiliation_

The defamatory statement must expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or

disgrace or cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided, or tend to injure the plaintiff in his or her

occupation. CAL. CIV. CODE h 45. In determining whether a statement is libelous, courts look to

what is explicitly states as well as what insinuation and implication can be reasonably drawn from

the communication. Forsher v. Bugliosi (1980) 26 Cal.3d 792, 803.

The statements contained on DINAALI'S websites are defamatory on their face and have

caused great embarrassment and harm to Plaintiffs. As alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint,

DINAALI'S Defamatory Websites have caused Plaintiffs to suffer from a loss of its reputation,

shame, mortification, and lost business opportunities all to its general damage. Com pl. , 35].

DINAALI'S Defamatory Websites have caused Plaintiffs harm and extreme

embarrassment

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs MCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN,

JARROD Y. NAKANO, and GARY T. DOTE respectfully request that this Court deny

Defendant ALADDIN DINAALI'S motion for judgment on the pleadings prejudice.

DATED: February 14, 2017 MCFAIRIIN/

By: '/|

Jarrod Y. NakanoAttorneys for PlaintiffsMCFARLIN LLP, TIMOTHY G.MCFARLIN, JARROD Y. NAKANO, andGARY T. DOTE

~ ~--- - ~ - - ~ -

-5-

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

DECLARATION OF PROOF OF SERVICEMcFarlin, LLP, et al. v. Aladdin Dinaali

Los Angeles County Superior Court ` Santa Monica CourthouseCase No. SC124187

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed byMCFARLIN LLP, whose business address is: 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025, Irvine, CA 92614.

On February 15, 2017, I served the foregoing documents) described as:PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ONTHE PLEADINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. on theinterested parties as follows:

Aladdin Dinaali Defendant in Pro Per6000 Canterbury Drive, D204Culver City, CA 90230

X BY MAIL: as follows:

X BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE as follows: I caused such envelope to be deliveredby overnight courier service to the offices of the addressee. The envelope was deposited in or with afacility regularly maintained by the overnight courier service with delivery fees paid or provided for.

X STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californiathat the above is true and correct.

Executed on February 15, 2017, a~/ , Cal

orion MOM20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

' - 28-'-`--~-~~~~

-1 -

PROOF OF SERVICE