Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LISA M. OSTELLA,

Plaintiff/Appellee

vs.
Case No. 17-56906
ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR
FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, INC.

Defendants/Third-Party-
Plaintiffs/Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court,

Central District of California, Southern Division

Case No. 8:11-cv-00485

Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

APPELL EE, LISA OSTELL A'S MOTION FOR SUMMA RY

AFFIRM ANCE OF THE DISTRIC T COURT' S
DECEM BER 13, 2017 ORDER

Jose B. Lorenzo
Lorenzo Law Firm, P.A.
2040 Delta Way
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Ph:855.757.2757
Email: admin@l orenzolaw firm.com

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee,

Lisa M Ostella
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 2 of 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............... .... ............... ........ ............... ............ .i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............... ............... ............... ............... ii-ix

I. INTRODUC TION .............. .... ............... ............... ............ ...... 1-2

II. PROCEDU RAL BACKGRO UND .............. .............. .............. ... 2-4

III. STATEME NT OF FACTS .............. .............. .............. ............ 4-6

III. ARGUMEN T .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. 6

A. SUMMARY AFFIRMAN CE IS PROPER .............. .............. .. 7

B. THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LACKS

JURISDICT ION ............... ............... ............... ............... ... 8

1. The District Court Lacked Subject Matter

Jurisdiction ............... ............... ............... ............... ...... 8

a. Failure to Comply with Fed. R. C. P. 9(b)

on the Fraud Claims .............. .............. .............. ........ 9

b. Statute of Limitations .............. .............. .............. 10-16

IV. THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER STRIKING TAITZ

and DOFF'S COUNTER CLAIMS and THIRD PARTY
COMPLAIN T is NOT a FINAL APPEALAB LE ORDER .............. . 16-17

V. CONCLUS ION .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. 17

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE .............. .......... .............. .............. ........ 18

EXHIBIT "A" November 3, 2017 Orly Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms
Foundation, Inc. Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint

EXHIBIT "B" December 13, 2017 Order of Judge Andrew J. Guilford

 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 3 of 28

EXHIBIT "C" October 14, 2017 Plaintiff, Lisa Ostella's Second Amended
Complaint

EXHIBIT "D" December 1, 2017 Plaintiff, Lisa Ostella's Motion to Dismiss

and/or Strike Defendant's Counterclaim and Third-Party
Complaint

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)

Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir.1980) ................... .. 11

Axell Int'l, Ltd. v. Intercargo Ins. Co., 183 F.3d 935, 943
(9th Cir. 1999) ................... ..... ................... ................... ...... . ......... .. 9

Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305,

116 S. Ct. 834, 133 L. Ed. 2d 773 (1996) .. .............. ................... .............. 19

Boon Rawd Trading Int'l Co. v. Paleewong Trading Co.,

688 F. Supp. 2d 940, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................... ................... ......... 16

Cal. Pharmacists Ass'n v. Maxwell- Jolly. 563 F.3d 847, 851-52

(9th Cir. 2009) ................... ................... ................... ................... ..... 7

California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air Oual. Mgmt. Dist. v.

United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000) .................... ................... 9

Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 616 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2010) ................ 19

Chemical Eng'g Corp. v. Marlo, Inc. , 754 F.2d 331 , 335

(Fed.Cir.1984) ................... .............. . ... ................... ............ ... .......... 8

Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers, Inc. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp.

(2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [8 Cal.Rptr.3d 199] .................... .............. 18

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,468 (1978) . ................... ........ 19

Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 285, 81 S.Ct. 534, -

ii
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 4 of 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIE S - Continued

Cases Page(s)

Costello (continued) ... 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961 ) ................... ................... .... 14

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954

(9th Cir. 2011) ................... ..... ................... ................... ................ ... 9

Daniels v. Robbins, (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 2004 ................... ................. 18

Detabali v. St. Luke's Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 2007) .................... 9

Deutsch v. Turner Corp. 324 F.3d 692, 717 (9th Cir. 2003),
cert. den. (2003) ................... ................... ................... ................... .. 12

Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.,

511 US. 863, 868 (1994) ................... ................... ................... .......... 19

Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 478,493

[78 Cal.Rptr.2d 142] ................... ................... ................... ............... 18

Englert v. MacDonnell, 551 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) ................... ..... 19

Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030

(9th Cir. 2008) ................... ................... ................... ............... ...... .. 18

Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc.,

100 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1093 (C.D.Cal.1999) ................... ................... ........ 10

Goldstein v. Riggs Nat'l Bank,

459 F.2d 1161, 1163 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1972) ................... ................... .......... 8

In re GlenFed, Inc. Securities Litigation), 42 F.3d 1541,1548

n. 7 (9th Cir. 1994) ................... ................... ................... .................. 10

In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2007) ................... ........... ,, .. 8

iii
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 5 of 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Cases Page(s)

Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc.,

304 F.3d 829,836 (9th Cir. 2002) ................... ..... ........ ................... ..... 14

Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am ., Inc. v. Surgical Techs., Inc.,

285 F.3d 848,857 (9th Cir. 1992) ................... ................... ................... 14

Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Ass'n, 387 F.3d 850, 855 (9th Cir. 004) .................... ....... 9

Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580,587 (9th Cir. 008) .................... 17

Leigh v. Gaffney. 432 F.2d 923 (10th ir.1970) .. ................ .... . ................... 7

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, Third Circuit Court of Appeals,

Case No. 10-03000 ................... ................... ................... ................... 4

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Case Number 11-56079 ................... ................... ... . ............... ............ .. 4

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Case Numberl 1-56164 ................... ................. ..... ... ..... .................... .. 4

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Case Number 13-56250 ................... ................... ................... .............. 4

Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Case Number 13-56253 ........ ................... ................... . ................... .... 4

Loritz v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit,

382 F.3d 990, 992 (9th Cir. 2004) ................... ................... ................... .. 7

Lou v. MA Labs., Inc., No. C 12-05409 WHA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
70665 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2013) ................... ................... ................... ... 9

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090

(9th Cir. 2003) ................... ................... ................... .............. ..... ...... 8

IV
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 6 of 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Cases Page(s)

McBride v. Boughton 123 Cal.App.4th 379,387,

20 Cal.Rptr.3d 115 (2004) ................... ................... ................... ......... 14

McElmurry v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 495 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2007) .......... 17

Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, No. 08-678,

- S. Ct.-, 2009 WL 4573276 (Dec. 8 2009) ................... ................... .... 17

National Labor Relations Bd. v. Playskool, Inc.,

431 F.2d 518, 519-520 (7th Cir.1970) .................... .................... ............... 7

Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 671 (9th ir.1993) ................... ............... 10

New West Corp. v. NYM Co., 595 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1979) ................. 13

North County Communication s Corp. v. California Catalog & Technology,

594 F.3d 1149, 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) ................... ................... ................. 9

Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 , 374,
98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978) ................... ................... ............... 8

Paracor Fin., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.,

96 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir.1996) ................... ........... . ................... ...... 14

Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) v. GoDaddy.com,

737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013) ... .. ................... ................... ................... . 13

Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. ,
506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S. Ct. 684, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993) .................... ..... .17

Reed v. United Transp. Union, 488 U.S. 319, 323-24 (1989) ................... ..... .13

Richardson-Me rrell v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424,436 (1985) ................... ........... 17

Ruiz v. Snohomish Cty. PUD, 824 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2016) .............. 9, 12

V
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 7 of 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Cases Page(s)

Saksenasingh v. Sec'y of Educ., 126 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.Cir.1997) .................... 9

Soliman v. CVS RX Services, Inc. , 570 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2014) ...... . ........ 15

Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 916 (1996) .................. 10

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S . 370, 375,

107 S. Ct. 1177, 94 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1987) ................... ................... .......... .17

Stutz Motor Car of Am. v. Reebok Int'l,

909 F.Supp. 1353, 1361 (C.D.Cal.1995) .............. ................... ... . ............ 15

Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756,763 (9 th Cir. 2007) .................... ............ 9

Thomson v. Canyon (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 594 .... .. ............. . ................... 10

Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 785,

112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) ................... ....... . ...... ................ 13

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725,

86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) ................... ......... .. ............ . ... . . ..... 9

US. Concord. Inc. v. Harris Graphics Corp. ,

757 F.Supp. 1053, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 1991 ) ................... ............ ... .............. 10

United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.2011) ................... .............. . 10

United States v. Dura-Lux Int'l Corp., 529 F.2d 659, 660-662

(8th Cir.1976) ........... .............. ....... .. ............. ......... ................... ..... .7

United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) ... .. .................... ... 7

Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir.2003) .. . ............. 9

Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349,

126 S. Ct. 952, 163 L. Ed. 2d 836 (2006) ............ . .... .. ............. . ................ 17

VI
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 8 of 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Cases Page(s)

th
Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1439 (9 Cir. 1987) ............. 10

UNITED STATES CODE

Page(s)

15 u.s.c. §1125 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ....... 13

15 U.S.C. §1125(a) .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 12

15 U.S.C. §1125(c) .. .... ....... . ... ....... .............. ... ........... ............. ......... 13

15 U.S.C. §l 125(d) .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 13

18 u.s.c. §3282 ........... . ............... ..... . ............... ............... .............. 10

28 u.s.c. §1291 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ....... 17
28 u.s.c. §1331 ..... .......... .......... ........... .............. ............ ............... .. 9
28 u.s.c. §1332 .... ............... . ...... .............. .............. .............. .......... 9
28 U.S.C § 1367(a) .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ... 8, 9

28 u.s.c. §2106 .............. .. ............... ...... ...... ..... .. .... ......... .......... ...... 6

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Page(s)

Rule 2 ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ......... 1

Vll
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 9 of 28

Rule 27 ............................ ............................ ............................ ...... l

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Page(s)

Rule 9(b ) ............................ ............................ ........................... 9, 10

Rule 12(b)(1 ) ............................ ............................ ........................... 9

Rule 13 ............................ ............................ ............................ .. 2, 9

Rule 13(h) ............................. ............................. ............................. . 2

Rule 14(b) ............................ ............................ ............................ .. 9

Rule 19 ........................ . ............................ ............................ ........ 8

Rule 54(b) ............................ ............................ ............................ 17

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES

Page(s)

California Civil Code:

§ 3344(a) ............................ ............................ ............................ ... 3

§3426.6 ............................ ............................ ............................ .... 16

California Code of Civil Procedure:

§45 ............................ ............................ ............................ ........... 3

§335.1 ............................ ............................ ............................ ..... 15

viii
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 10 of 28

§338(c) ................... ................... ................... ................... ............ 10

§338(d) ................... ................... ................... ................... ............ 10

§339(1) ................... ................... ................... ................... ......... 14, 15

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES- Continued

Page(s)

§340(c) ................... ................... ................... ................... .. 10, 11, 12

§340(3) ................... ................... ................... ................... .............. 15

§527.6 ................... ................... ................... ................... .............. 3

Penal Code:

§653.2 ................... ................... ................... ................... ............... 3

ix
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 11 of 28

I. INTRODUCT ION

Lisa Ostella, Appellee/Plaint iff ("Ostella"), submits this Motion for

Summary Affirmance of District Court' s Order [Dkt. #772 as amended #774] of

December 13, 2017, currently under Appeal, 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2106, Rule of

App. Proc. Proc. Rule 2 and Rule 27. Ostella moves as such because Appeal is

inappropriate, i.e., a). Circuit Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as did the

District Court; b). failure to comply with fraud claim requirements; c). Statute of

Limitations bars all Counterclaim-Third-Party Complaint ("CCITPC")

counterclaims/claims [See Exhibit A]; d). Appeals a non-final order; e). it is not

within Collateral Order Doctrine exceptions for Interlocutory Orders', and f).

Appeals for purposes of DELAYING proceedings, avoiding outstanding discovery,

and thwart District Court ADR. Trial is March 27, 2018 and pre-trial is

February 26, 2018.

Appellant/Defendant Orly Taitz [See note l]("Taitz"), despite being a

licensed attorney, has not given information for its defense, has avoided discovery

to support the truth of her postings. The Appeal is a non-sequitur elaborate

narrative of Taitz's defamatory conduct that lead to the law suit against her,

underscored by the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), against which Taitz filed

a CC/TPC. Taitz ignores the statutory bar of limitations for each and every

1
Appeal filed by Appellant/Defendant Orly Taitz and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF) (herein after
referred to together as ("TAITZ")

1
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 12 of 28

counterclaim and claim in the CC/TPC. Devoid of waiting 8 ½ years to file its

CC/TPC, it would still fail for not complying with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b) on all

fraud claims, lacking diversity of jurisdiction, not proving the $75,000 in damages,

and wrongfully violating Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 13(h)- DOFF is without standing

as it was dismissed in 2016.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Ostella remains the only Plaintiff after case was filed May 2009 in the

Eastern District of PA, [Dkt. # 1] with 21 defendants and six plaintiffs. Taitz

threatened, on June 16, 2009, with its Amended Answer and Motion to Strike [Dkt.

#61 ], that it reserved the right to file Counterclaims against Ostella for:

"embezzlement, identity theft, theft, fraud, credit card fraud, defamation of

character by libel (with actual damages), charitable organization fraud, and
conversion .. . breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion,
common law theft, and a pattern of racketeering and corrupt organizations
activity with predicate acts involving mail fraud, wire fraud, and electronic
access (bank and credit card) fraud, as well as misuse of confidential identity
and access codes, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1964(c) .. . prior to the
expiration of sixty (60) days from the filing of Plaintiffs ' original Complaint
filed May 4, 2009, if the Plaintiffs ' May 4, 2009 Complaint is not dismissed
with prejudice by that time. " [Dkt. #61, p. 10, §47].

Taitz' s Motion was denied, and Complaint was not dismissed. Taitz waits 8-1 /2

years, a total of 102 months, and expects the Court to honor her filing in 2017.

Taitz' s request to transfer the case July 2010 to the Central District of CA,

was granted, on March 29, 2011, [Dkt. # 170] and Taitz appealed the requested

2
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 13 of 28

transfer, causing delay. 2 Judge Guilford, upon Plaintiffs' request issued a pre-

filing Order requiring the parties to seek leave prior to filing pleadings, Dkt. #227.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on June 11, 2011 [Dkt. #231]. In October

2016, the only remaining Plaintiff, Lisa Ostella, moved to dismiss all dispensable

non-pertinent Defendants, including Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF),

and all personally unrelated claims. Ostella seeks on four (4) claims. Request was

granted to simplify the case and pre-trial set for February 26, 2018 and Trial for

March 27, 2018. Ostella's SAC (See Exhibit C), was filed October 14, 2017

[Dkt. #751] for 1) Invasion of Privacy- False light Publicity; 2) Invasion of

Privacy - Appropriation of Name, Cal. Civ. Code§ 3344(a); 3) Cyber

Harassment/Bullying Cal. Pen. Code §653.2. & C.C.P. §527.6; and 4)

Defamation Per Se - Libel Per Se, C.C.P. §45.

Taitz's filed an Answer on November 3, 2017 [Dkt. #752] and filed her

CCITPC, (See Exhibit A) [Dkt. #753], on behalf of herself and the terminated

Defendant, DOFF and named third party Defendants who had never been parties to

the within action. Ostella filed a Motion to Strike the CC/TPC. (See Exhibit D)

The District Court struck the CC/TPC on December 13, 2017(See Exhibit B),

[Dkt. #772 amended naming Lisa Ostella Dkt. #77 4] and it confirmed trial dates.

2
Taitz requested the case transferred to the U.S.D.C., Central District of CA. Once Granted by
Judge Robreno, and the case was ordered transferred, Taitz Appealed the Order of Transfer in
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, delaying the within Action for close to a year. See Liberi, et
al v. Taitz, et al, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 10-03000.
3
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 14 of 28

"Defendant Taitz's filing is late, includes claims concerning parties long

since dismissed from this case, does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 13, and was filed without the Court's leave. (See Dkt. No. 227.)
For these and other reasons, the Court STRIKES the "Counterclaim and
Third-Party Complaint" (Dkt. No. 753.)" [emphasis addedj

Taitz repeatedly seeks delays and appeals non-final orders. 3

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ostella's case - as stated in the SAC (See Exhibit C) is on four (4) claims

for Taitz's online postings, whereby Taitz from her www.orlytaitzesq.com blog,

posted nine (9) defamatory publications plus filed a false police report and F.B.I

report accusing Ostella of criminal activity with Taitz's donation account. Taitz's

posts remain on www.orlytaitzesq.com blog constituting 8 ½ years of continuous

libel with nine (9) publications. The www.orlytaitzesq.com blog has a rating of

top 1% by Alexa among one million websites, has a visitor counter that exceeds 94

million, has over 500 linked affiliated websites causing the gravamen of

defamation/Libel Per Se to the extreme of what is reasonable.

Ostella provides web design and hosting for clients from New Jersey.

Ostella purchased and currently owns the domain names defendourfreedoms" and

its suffixes .com, .net, .info, .org, and .us. Taitz has two PayPal donations

3
Taitz has filed five appeals in this case See Liberi, et al v. Taitz, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, Case Numbers 9th CCA, 11-56079; 9th CCA, 11-56164, 9th CCA, 13-56250,
and 9th CCA, 13-56253.

4
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 15 of 28

accounts; one of which was set-up by Ostella only to be established by Taitz

herself in December 2008 using her own social security number and her email

orly.taitz@gmail.com, because no corporate entity existed that would have a FEI

number.4 So, Ostella then transferred the PayPal donate button code to Taitz, as

Taitz's PayPal account was to be controlled by Taitz's orly.taitz@gmail.com

email for authentication and access with a password only known by Taitz.

Later, when donors received error messages, Taitz quickly posted on her

blog that her PayPal account to the defendourfreedoms.us blog was hacked by

outside sources (of course naming Obama). Ostella told Taitz of the technical

reasons the blog was not hacked, since the web blog was hosted on Ostella's server

account and the PayPal account had nothing to do with the blog nor its hosting.

Taitz's also learned that the donations glitch was due to an email suffix error of

Taitz's own email and not a blog hacking and Ostella made Taitz aware of the

reason it was not a hack.

Yet, Taitz disregarded all explanations and posted that her site was hacked

and that she filed a cybercrime report with the FBI. When Taitz rejected Ostella's

explanation to correct her report to the FBI and her posting on the blog, Ostella

told Taitz she needed another webmaster. Taitz filed on April 17, 2009 a report

with the Orange County Sheriffs Department ("OSCO"), and posted her police

4
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. did not exist. Taitz registered February 19, 2009.
5
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 16 of 28

report accusing Ostella of theft stating and Lisa Liberi were one and the same,

having a criminal record, and claiming that Ostella took $10,000 of donations from

Taitz's foundation. While Ostella remains the rightful owner of the

"defendourfreedoms" domain Taitz posted that Ostella blocked Taitz from her

website/blog. Noteworthy, Ostella was in the process of transferring the domain

credentials when Taitz filed the criminal reports. But to allow an investigation,

Ostella stopped the transfer; she did not want to obstruct an investigation.

Ostella always maintains her innocence. After reviewing in 2010 the

subpoenaed Taitz's PayPal donation account records, Ostella learned that Taitz

was continuously receiving donations and Taitz had a previously existing PayPal

account for donations. Taitz's continued her online defamation accusing Ostella of

criminal activity via her nine (9) online posts shows great negligence. Strategically,

Taitz has sought protected speech status under Anti-SLAPP, without ever proving

truthfulness, and by asserting the mere existence of a "cause" via the words

"defend our freedoms foundation" I "DOFF" as if having independent import.

ARGUMENT:

A: SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE IS PROPER

The Ninth Circuit has the inherent power to grant Ostella' s Motion for

Summary Affirmance. 28 U.S.C. §2106 States

" .. court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or
reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it
6
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 17 of 28

for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such
appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings
to be had as may be just under the circumstances."

The Statute of Limitations has run on all claims. Trial is set for March 27,

2017 and Ostella has endured 8 ½ years the stigma ofTaitz's accusations. Delays

will increase the reasonable expected injury as one can expect of being unable to

secure employment due to being criminally accused via the Internet on nine (9)

posts, propagated for 8 ½ years. As a webmaster, Ostella's work is on the Internet.

Granting Ostella's Motion would minimize Ostella's irreparable harm. 5

Summary Affirmance is appropriate in this case as it was in In re Thomas, Loritz,

and Hooton, among others. 6

5
See Cal. PharmacistsAss'n v. Maxwell- Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 851-52 (9th Cir. 2009) (economic
injury can be irreparable harm if damages relief is not available).
6
summary disposition is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so
" •••
clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of
the appeal exists" See also In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2007), (Ninth
Circuit explained its "standards for disposing of cases on a summary basis"); :Loritz v.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 382 F.3d 990, 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (Summary
Affirmance proper when Appellant lacked standing); United States v. Hooton 693 F.2d
857,858 (9th Cir. 1982) (summary affinnance of a final judgment where "it is manifest
that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not
to need further argument"); Chemical Eng'g Corp. v. Marlo, Inc., 754 F.2d 331,335
(Fed.Cir.1984) (court sua sponte summarily affirmed district court; appeal was "clearly
hopeless and unquestionably without any possible basis in fact or law"); National Labor
Relations Bd. v. Playskool, Inc., 431 F.2d 518, 519-520 (7th Cir.1970) (court granted
motion for summary affirmance because one party's contentions were found so
unsubstantial as to render the appeal frivolous and because time was of the essence);
United States v. Dura-Lux Int'l Corp., 529 F.2d 659, 660-662 (8th Cir.1976) (court sua
sponte concluded that summary disposition was appropriate because the questions
presented did not require further argument and because one party's contentions were
without merit); Leigh v. Gaffney, 432 F.2d 923 (10th Cir.1970) (court granted motion for
summary affirmance because question presented was so unsubstantial as to not warrant
7
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 18 of 28

B. THE NINTH CIRCUIT LACKS JURISDICTION:

DOFF does not have standing. It was correctly dismissed October 12, 2016

as Ostella does not have any claims against it. There was no joinder for DOFF nor

to insert other unrelated individuals as defendants, who never were parties to this

action. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 19, see Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule13(h). The Court's limited

jurisdiction cannot be expanded. 7 Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction may be

raised at any time, including on appeal. 8 This Court has an independent duty to

evaluate its own and the District Court's jurisdictions, even if none of the parties to

the Action raise it. 9 The Motion for Affirmance should be granted.

1. The District Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction over

the CC/TPC filed by Taitz:

Although federal courts have the authority to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims, i.e., 28 U.S.C § 1367(a), the claims need to be

further argument); Goldstein v. Riggs Nat'l Bank, 459 F.2d 1161, 1163 n. 2
(D.C.Cir.1972) (court dispensed with additional briefing and argument because the
motion for summary affirmance demonstrated "that the merits of the claim are so clear as
to warrant expeditious action").

7 (See Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d
274 (1978)), (See also Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
8
See Detabali v. St. Luke's Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 2007)).
9 (See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011)) (en bane);
California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005,
1009 (9th Cir. 2000) ("An appellate court is under a 'special obligation to satisfy itself not only
of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review, even though the
parties are prepared to concede it .. . [or] make no contention concerning it."') (quoting Axell
lnt'l, Ltd. v. Intercargo Ins. Co., 183 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 1999)).

8
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 19 of 28

related to form part of the same case and controversy. Taitz does not establish,

under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 13, the basis for its compulsory claim treatment or its

permissive claim treatment. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 14(b). Taitz does not establish

the required operative fact. 10 The Circuit and the District Court is unable to

exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under§ 1367(a) because the statute of

limitations has lapsed on Taitz's Federal claims prior to filing CC/TPC, so

dismissal by the District Court was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(l).

The District Court lacked original jurisdiction and it could only determine its

jurisdiction. 11 The Court does not have the "discretion to exceed the scope of its

Article III power". 12 District Court's striking the CC/TPC was appropriate. 13

a. Failure to Comply with Fed. R. C. P. 9(b) on the Fraud Claims

Taitz's CC/TPC does not explain nor describe details of time, place,

statements, people, to satisfy Rule 9(b). 14 15

Taitz's fraud claims, 1st, 2 nd , 3rd , 5th ,

10
(See Lou v. MA Labs., Inc., (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2013). See also Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Ass'n.
387 F.3d 850, 855 (9th Cir. 2004).
11
(See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218
(1966)). ("Exercise ofjurisdiction ... would therefore violate Article III of the Constitution,
because the original federal claim would not have 'substance sufficient to confer subject matter
jurisdiction upon the court. '"
12 (See North County Communications Corp. v. California Catalog & Technology, 594 F.3d

1149, 1162 (9th Cir. 2010); Saksenasingh v. Sec'y of Educ., 126 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.Cir.1997)
("Jfthe District Court ... dismissed the underlying federal claim on jurisdictional grounds, then
it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction."). See 28 U.S .C. § 1331 & 1332.
13
See Ruiz v. Snohomish Cty. PUD, 824 F.3d 1161 , 1165 (9th Cir. 2016).
14
(See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756,763 (9 th Cir. 2007); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
317 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2003)). (See Fed. R. Civil P. 9(b):" ... a party must state with
9
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 20 of 28

Predicated Acts (A-E) to the 5th Counterclaim, 8th, 9th , and 14th counterclaims fail to

meet the case nor controversy elements in Fed. R. Civ. P, 9(b ). 16

Statute of Limitations

After 8 ½ years, Taitz's predicated acts for RICO claims under Federal and

State counterclaims lapse and are time barred.

A. Taitz's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th 17 (and Predicated Acts A-E) Counterclaims;

8th, 9th, 10th and 14th Counterclaims for Fraud and state fraud claims carry a three

18
(3) year Statute of Limitations.

B. Taitz's 6th Counterclaim (Abuse of Process) Statute of limitations is

one (1) year CA Code Civ. Proc.,§ 340(3), Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d

677,682 (9th Cir.1980). The 7th, 27th, 28th Counterclaims, 3rd Party Complaint

- 2nd -4 th Claims are for Defamation; 11th and 12th Counterclaims are for Invasion

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." (See In re GlenFed, Inc. Securities
Litigation), 42 F.3d 1541 ,1548 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1994) (en bane).
15
(See In re Glenfield, 42 F.3d at 1548 quoting Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc. , 818 F.2d 1433,
1439 (9 th Cir. 1987). (overruled on other grounds); Also see Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. v.
Tektronix. Inc .. 100 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1093 (C.D.Cal.1999); "[A]llegations such as ' [d]uring the
course of discussions in 1986 and 1987,' ' in or about May through December 1987,' and 'May
1987 and thereafter' ... do not make the grade" under Rule 9(b). US. Concord, Inc. v. Harris
Graphics Corp. , 757 F.Supp. 1053, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
16
(See Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 671 (9th Cir.1993).
17
Taitz and DOFF's Predicated Acts (B), (C), and (D) to the 5th Counterclaim; are for Forgery.
Forgery is a form of Fraud.
18CCP 338(d), Thomson v. Canyon (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 594; and for Federal Fraud Claims,
the Statute of Limitations is five (5) years, 18 U.S.C. §3282, United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d
815 (9th Cir.2011). Also, Taitz' s 4th and 13th (Conversion) Counterclaims Statute of
Limitations is three [3] years, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c), Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc.,
51 Cal.App.4th 906,916 (1996).

10
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 21 of 28

of Privacy; 23 rd CounterClaim Appropriation of Likeness and all carry a one [1]

year Statute of Limitations. 19

C. Taitz' s 7 th Counterclaim' s multiple allegations, aside from being

20
unfounded in fact, are all time-barred as the Statute of limitations is one (1 ) year.

D. Taitz' s 11th and 12th Counterclaims are all time barred as the Statute

of limitations is one (1) year. 21 Even if within the statutory time, they were legal

subpoenas issued on April 26, 2010 for Taitz's high relevant PayPal records and

issued on January 23, 2010, for the Orange County Sheriffs Department Report.

Taitz's www.orlytaitzesq.com. blog posting accusing Ostella repeatedly mention

her PayPal donation account affected by Ostella and her police report accusing on

Ostella. Ostella' s Attorney filed them, properly redacted, with the District Court

in this action on May 4, 2011. (See Dkt. #190-4, 190-5, and 190-6), and were not

published online as Taitz customarily does to hurt people.

19
CA Code Civ. Proc., § 340(c), Deutsch v. Turner Corp. 324 F.3d 692, 717 (9th Cir. 2003), cert.
den. (2003).
2
°CA Code Civ. Proc. , § 340(c), Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011).
21
CA Code Civ. Proc. , § 340(c), Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011).,
Deutsch v. Turner Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 324 F.3d 692, 717, cert. den. (2003).

11
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 22 of 28

E. Taitz's 23 rd Counterclaim allegation is time barred and should be

dismissed. 22 Even if not time barred, DOFF did not exist when Ostella bought the

domains. Taitz's claims are unfounded because there was "nothing" to take over.

F. Taitz's 27 th and 28 th Counterclaim alleging Ostella's involvement in

creating a Linkedln page incorrectly mentioning Taitz's credentials is reasonably

absurd and time barred. 23 Criticisms of Taitz circulate the Internet for years.

G. Taitz's 3 rd Party Complaint- 2nd -4 th are identical to 7th , 27th and 28 th

Counterclaims. Ostella incorporates by reference each of her Arguments as to why

the Circuit Court lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction on Taitz's 7th , 27 th and 28 th

Counterclaims, as if fully pled herein. Therefore, the District Court and this Court

lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Taitz's 7th, 11th, 12th, 23rd, 27th, and
24
28th Counterclaims and Taitz's, 3rd Third Party Complaint, 2nd -4 th claims.

H. Taitz's 15th (Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)); 16th

(Common-Law Unfair Competition); 17th Counterclaim for (Cybersquatting, 15

22
The_Statute oflimitations is one (1) year, CA Code Civ. Proc.,§ 340(c), Roberts v. McAfee,
Inc. , 660 F.3d 1156, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011)., Deutsch v. Turner Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 324 F.3d
692, 717, cert. den. (2003).
23
The Statute of limitations is one (1) year, CA Code Civ. Proc., § 340(c), Roberts v. McAfee,
Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011)., Deutsch v. Turner Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 324 F.3d
692, 717, cert. den. (2003).
24
Ruiz, 824 F.3d at 1165 (quoting Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265,285, 81 S.Ct. 534, 5
L.Ed.2d 551 (1961) (noting the "fundamental jurisdictional defects which render a judgment
void ... such as lack of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter").

12
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 23 of 28

U.S.C. §1125(d))2 5; 18th(TrademarkDilution, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)); 19th

(Trademark Infringement) Counterclaims are Lanham Act Cause of Actions and

"contains no explicit statute of limitations," yet, federal courts "presume that

Congress intended to 'borrow' the limitations period from the closely analogous

action under state law." 26 Federal courts consult the relevant state statute-of-

limitations period for fraud claims, which are closely analogous to false-

advertising claims arising under Section 43(a)(l)(B).27 Thus, Taitz' s 15 th , 16th ,

17th, 18 th , and 19th counterclaims have a three (3) year Statute of Limitations and

are time barred. Even if not barred by time, as they each argue the same

allegations, under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and under California law,

while lacking the factual timeline or supporting detail. Also, when Taitz registered

the "DOFF" letters at the USPTO it did so on February 26, 2016 with no filing

basis stated almost 8 years after Ostella bought the domains and launched the

website. There wasn't any "DOFF" in California registry until later in 2009.

25
Ostella cannot be sued for Cybersquatting, 15 U.S .C. 1125(d) when there is a count for Unfair
Competition, see Counterclaim 15, Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) v. GoDaddy.com, 737
F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013 ).
26
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Reed v.
United Transp. Union, 488 U.S . 319, 323-24 (1989)).
27 See, e.g. , Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Surgical Techs., Inc., 285 F.3d 848, 857 (9th Cir.

1992) (applying California's three-year fraud statute of limitations to Lanham Act claims). Two
Pesos v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 , 785, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) (the
Lanham Act "codified, among other things, the ... common-law tort[] of . ... trademark
infringement"). "The courts have uniformly held that common law and statutory trade-mark
infringements are merely specific aspects of unfair competition", New West Corp. v. NYM Co. ,
595 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1979).
13
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 24 of 28

It is quite humorous or demonstrative of Taitz's hubris that it seeks to

elevate the literal significance of "DOFF" or assert its distinctiveness while the

Urban dictionary defines "DOFF" as:

"a reference to those who aren't up to the common norms of intelligence, it is

now used for those who not only do not have the intelligence to assess
certain matters of import, but also do not have the correct information or
wherewithal to do so."

Albeit, Taitz has avoided being deposed and not complied with document

production nor interrogatory requests. The 15 th , 16th , 17th , 18th , and 19th

counterclaims are time barred, 28 and the District Court should be affirmed.

I. Taitz's 20th Counterclaim for Unjust enrichment is time barred as the

Statute of Limitations is two (2) years. 29 Even if not time barred, Taitz does not

show that there was a binding agreement. Taitz claims unjust enrichment despite

Ostella owning the defendourfreedoms domains; built websites/blogs, and stopped

access to allow an investigation after Taitz' s police reports. The District Court

should be affirmed. 30

28
See Ruiz, supra n. 21
29
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1 ). Unjust enrichment is "not a cause of action ... or even a
remedy, but rather a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies. It is
synonymous with restitution." McBride v. Boughton 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 387, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d
115 (2004).
30 Paracor Fin., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.. 96 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir.1996).A claim for

unjust enrichment is properly pied as a claim for a contract implied-in-law. It "does not lie when
an enforceable, binding agreement exists defining the rights of the parties." Boon Rawd Trading
Int'I Co. v. Paleewong Trading Co., 688 F. Supp. 2d 940, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (dismissing an
unjust enrichment claim because the plaintiff did not "either allege that the parties' rights were
not squarely set out in a binding agreement, or allege that any express contract was procured by
fraud or was ineffective for some reason").
14
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 25 of 28

J. Taitz's 21st Counterclaim for Severe Intentional Emotional Distress is

time barred as the statute of limitations is two (2) years. 31 Even if not barred the

allegation is factually deficient and District Court should be affirmed.

K. Taitz's 22nd Counterclaim for Interference with Prospective

Advantage is barred as the Statute of Limitations is two (2) years.32 Noteworthy, is

that Taitz asked Ostella to set-up a PayPal account using a name already owned by

Ostella as Ostella owned the domain defendourfreedoms and its suffixes. 33 It was

to be set up using the orly.taitz@gmail.com email to direct donations via

www.drorly.blogspot.com blog. Ostella always owned defendourfreedoms.us,

.com, .org, and .net. Taitz has not used Ostella's domain names or biogs/websites

since April 11, 2009. District Court should be affirmed.

L. Taitz's 24th Counterclaim is for Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of

Process 34 is premature. Abuse of Process barred as the Statute of limitation is one

(1) year. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(3). Malicious Prosecution claim is barred as

the Statue of Limitations is two (2) years, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.l; unless you

31
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1., Soliman v. CVS RX Services, Inc. , 570 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir.
2014), unpublished Opinion, (Under California law, there is a two-year statute of limitations for
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 3 35 .1 ).
32Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1). Stutz Motor Car of Arn. v. Reebok Int'l. 909 F.Supp. 1353,
1361 (C.D.Cal.1995).
33
Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc. ["DOFF"] was never set-up as a charitable foundation
and was not incorporated by Taitz until February 19, 2009, after Taitz was using Ostella's
website/blog defendourfreedoms.org.
34
This Abuse of Process is a duplicate Counterclaim, see Taitz and DOFF's 6thCounterclaim.
15
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 26 of 28

are an attorney, then it is one (1) year, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(6). You cannot

sue for these two torts until litigation ends and you are the winning party. 35 Taitz

fails to establish the elements for malicious prosecution. 36 These counterclaims are

premature. This case is set for trial on March 2018 just 90 days away. District

Court should be affirmed.

M. Taitz's 25th Counterclaim - Violation of CA Uniform Trade Secrets

Act and Release of Confidential Info is time barred as the Statute of Limitations is

three (3) years.37 Taitz fails to state requisite elements. The District Court should

be affirmed.

IV. THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER STRIKING TAITZ

and DOFF'S COUNTERCLAIMS and THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT is NOT a FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER:

District Court's 12/13/2017 Order is not a final Judgment Order as it did not

dispose of all parties and/or all claims. The Order does not meet the Collateral
35
Daniels v. Robbins, (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 204.

36
"' Malicious prosecution is a disfavored action. Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records. 515
F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). This is due to the principles that favor open access to the courts
for the redress of grievances."' (Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 478,
493 (78 Cal.Rptr.2d 142]. [T]he elements of the [malicious prosecution] tort containThree
elements must be pleaded and proved to establish the tort of malicious prosecution: ( 1) A lawsuit
was "' "commenced by or at the direction of the defendant [which] was pursued to a legal
termination in .. . plaintiffs . .. favor""'; (2) the prior lawsuit "'"was brought without probable
cause""'; and (3) the prior lawsuit "'"was initiated with malice.""' Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers,
Inc. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 (8 Cal.Rptr.3d 199].

Cal. Civ. Code§ 3426.6. California adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by enacting Cal.
37

Civ. Code § 3426.6. states that "an action for misappropriation must be brought within three
years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have been discovered."
16
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 27 of 28

Order Doctrine, 38 it is not immediately appealable, as it did not address a "disputed

question or resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the

action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." 39 The

Appeal by Taitz even fails by the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The

initial inquiry of an appellate court is does it have jurisdiction on the appeal. 40

Taitz waited 8-1/2 years to bring forth all her CCffPC claims, and should

have respected the time limitations for each.

V. CONCLUSION:

For the reasons stated above, Ostella's Motion for Summary Affirmance
should be granted, the District Court's Order must be Affirmed and Appellees
awarded Attorney fees and Costs.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 29, 2017 s/J.B. Lorenzo
Jose B. Lorenzo
Attorney for Appellee, Lisa Ostella

38
McElmurry v. US. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 495 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Stringfellow
v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370,375, 107 S. Ct. 1177, 94 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1987)).
39
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 , 468 (1978) (citations omitted); see also
Mohawk Indus .. Inc. v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, - S. Ct.-, 2009 WL 4573276 (Dec. 8 2009);
Englert v. MacDonnell, 551 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546
F.3d 580, 587 (9th Cir. 2008).
40
The Ninth Circuit explained that Federal Appellate Courts can review two (2] kinds of Rulings;
final decisions on the merits quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Cassirer v. Kingdom o(Spain, 616 F.3d
1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2010); and a small class of collateral orders quoting Will v. Hallock, 546
U.S. 345, 349, 126 S. Ct. 952, 163 L. Ed. 2d 836 (2006) (quoting Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S.
299,305, 116 S. Ct. 834, 133 L. Ed. 2d 773 (1996)). See Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop
Direct, Inc., 511 US. 863 ,868 (1994) (quoting Richardson-Merrell v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 436
(1985)); See also Will, 546 U.S. at 349, (quoting Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc. , 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S. Ct. 684, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993)).
17
 Case: 17-56906, 12/29/2017, ID: 10707650, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 28 of 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jose B. Lorenzo, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Appellees-

Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Appellants Orly Taitz and Defend our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc.'s Appeals and Affirm the District Court's Order was served this

29 day of December, 2017, upon the following electronically through the ECF

Filing System.

Kim Schumann, Esquire

Jeffrey Cunningham, Esquire
SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP
3100 S. Bristol Street, Suite 400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Email: kschumann@srrlawfirm.com and jcunningham@srrlawfirm.com

Attorney for Appellant Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz, Esquire

29839 Santa Margarita, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and dr taitz@yahoo.com

Attorney for Appellant Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc.

Marc Steven Colen, Esquire

LAW OFFICES OF MARC STEVEN COLEN
5737 Kanan Road, Suite 347
Agoura hills, CA 91301
Email: mcolen@colenlaw.com, lcolen@colenlaw.com

Attorney for Appellant, Orly Taitz

s/Jose B. Lorenzo 12/29/2017

18