Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID

#:5677

1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire

2
Pennsylvania I.D. 9867
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
3 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
4 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Telephone: (610) 825-3134
5 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISION
9
10
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
11 : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
:
12 Plaintiffs, : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
:
13 :
vs. : PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO
14 :
: DEFENDANTS ORLY TAITZ and
15 : ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. OPPOSITION
ORLY TAITZ, et al, : TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
16 :
: LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST
17 Defendants. : AMENDED COMPLAINT
:
18 : Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011
19 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Courtroom 10D
20
21 PLANITIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
22 REPLY TO DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ and ORLY TAITZ, ESQUIRE
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION
23
24 COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times
25
“Berg”]; Lisa Ostella [hereinafter at times “Ostella”]; Go Excel Global; Lisa Liberi
26
27 [hereinafter at times “Liberi”]; and The Law Offices of Philip J. Berg and files the
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 1
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 10 Page ID
#:5678

1 within Memorandum Of Points and Authorities in Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz

2
and Orly Taitz, Esq. [hereinafter “Defendant”] Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion
3
4 Seeking Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; and for an Order that Leave
5 must be Granted by the Court prior to the filing of any Motions. In support hereof,
6
Plaintiffs aver the following:
7
8 1. Defendant in their Opposition states Plaintiffs filing of their
9
Supplemental with their First Amended Complaint attached is deficient.
10
11 Defendant claims Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint is

12 deficient. Defendant then cites CACD L.R. 15-1, which states, “Any proposed
13
amended pleading must be electronically filed as a document separate from a
14
15 related motion or stipulation”. [Def. Opp, p. 2, ¶2, ll. 20-23]. As can be seen by
16
the Court’s Docket, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint separate from their
17
18
Motion and Brief as required by this Rule.

19 2. Defendant next states Plaintiffs Motion is deficient because CACD

20
L.R. 15-3 provides, “An amended pleading allowed by order of the Court shall be
21
22 deemed served upon the parties who have previously appeared on the date the
23
motion to amend is granted or the stipulation therefor is approved…” [Def. Opp, p.
24
2, ¶2, ll. 24-26] Plaintiffs Motion is set to be heard on June 13, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
25
26 Therefore, Plaintiffs are at a loss as to why Defendant’s cited this Local Rule.
27
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 2
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 3 of 10 Page ID
#:5679

1 3. Defendant next contends the amended pleading “is required to be filed

2
prior to the hearing on the motion, Local Rule 7-5 requires that the proposed
3
4 amended pleading be filed concurrently with the notice of motion. CACD LR 7-5
5 provides: “There shall be served and filed with the notice of motion: (a) brief
6
complete memorandum in support thereof and the points and authorities upon
7
8 which the moving party will rely; and (b) The evidence upon which the moving
9
party will reply in support of motion.” [Def. Opp, p. 1, ¶2, ll. 27-28 and p. 2, ll. 1-
10
11 4]. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief) in Support of

12 their Motion and evidence in which they relied. Plaintiffs filed their Amended
13
Complaint prior to the hearing and Plaintiffs were not supposed to file their First
14
15 Amended Complaint with the Notice of Motion as claimed by Defendant as this
16
would not be compliant with this Court’s L.R. 15-1.
17
18
4. Defendant states “CACD LR 7-12 provides, “The Court may decline

19 to consider any memorandum or other paper not filed within the deadline set by
20
order or local rule. The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it
21
22 within the deadline, may be deemed consent to granting or denial of motion”.
23
Plaintiffs filed the Proposed First Amended Complaint as an attachment…on May
24
20, 2011, just one [1] business day before the instant opposition is due…”. This
25
26 Court’s Local Rule 7-12 pertains to Motions, Oppositions and Replies. Plaintiffs
27
First Amended Complaint could not be filed with Plaintiffs Motion Seeking Leave
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 3
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 4 of 10 Page ID
#:5680

1 as that would violate this Court’s Local Rule 15-1. Further, before filing the
2
Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs were waiting for confirmations from their Experts
3
4 regarding the allegations plead against the Reed Defendants, Intelius, Inc.,
5 Daylight Chemical, Oracle and Yosef Taitz. Once verification of the language
6
used and the reasons giving rise to the Amended Complaint were confirmed,
7
8 Plaintiffs immediately filed their First Amended Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs
9
also requested Leave to File their First Amended Complaint in their Opposition to
10
11 Defendant Taitz’s Anti-SLAPP and Motion to Dismiss. See Docket No. 186 filed

12 May 5, 2011, p. 4, ¶6, ll. 4-5; p. 12, ¶23, ll. 1-4; p. 22, ¶40, ll. 11-14; and p. 24,
13
¶46, ll. 20-25, which Defendant failed to cite and/or refer to.
14
15 5. If Defendants felt they needed additional time to review Plaintiffs
16
First Amended Complaint, in order to respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to
17
18
Amend, they could have simply requested Plaintiffs to agree to an extension of

19 time, which they failed to do. Once Plaintiffs are granted Leave to Amend and
20
their Amended Complaint is officially filed, Defendants will have the appropriate
21
22 time to Answer the Amended Complaint and/or file a Motion to Dismiss. Thus,
23
there is no prejudice. This Court has the inherent power to consider and grant
24
Leave for the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. See Yusov v. Yusuf,
25
26 892 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1989).
27
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 4
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 5 of 10 Page ID
#:5681

1 6. Defendant claims Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is futile, which is

2
completely untrue as demonstrated by their First Amended Complaint.
3
4 7. Defendants through their Opposition claim Plaintiffs Amended
5 Complaint should not be allowed without knowing who the additional parties are.
6
Plaintiffs have filed their First Amended Complaint with the new parties entered,
7
8 thus the Court is aware of the new Defendants as are the Defendants.
9
8. Defendant next claims there are no new claims asserted by Plaintiffs.
10
11 Defendant claims in essence that the malicious prosecution claim is somehow the

12 same as Plaintiffs Defamation, Libel, and Slander Cause of Action; this is

13
complete nonsense. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiffs Complaint, as plead for
14
15 Pennsylvania, covers these issues and any amendment is futile, which is ridiculous.
16
[Def. Opp. P. 4, ¶5, ll. 15-24]. Defendant Taitz as an Attorney and an Officer of
17
18
the Court through her law practice filed papers in the San Bernardino County

19 Superior Court in April 2011 attempting to have Plaintiff Lisa Liberi falsely
20
imprisoned based on unsubstantiated assertions that Liberi somehow violated her
21
22 terms and conditions of probation. Three [3] Court Hearings took place which
23
required appearances and counsel. Plaintiff Liberi was cleared of all falsified
24
allegations asserted by Defendants Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz, Esquire. This is
25
26 far and beyond Defamation, Libel and Slander. The laws of California and
27
Pennsylvania differ drastically. Further, there are additional Defendants Plaintiffs
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 5
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 6 of 10 Page ID
#:5682

1 must add as “DOE” Defendants based on newly discovered evidence. Even after
2
suit was filed in Pennsylvania pursuant to the Pennsylvania laws, Defendant Orly
3
4 Taitz continued her illegal tactics which gave rise to the within lawsuit. Defendant
5 is trying to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to redress and their ability to recoup
6
damages caused by the illegal behaviors of Defendant Orly Taitz.
7
8 9. Defendant is asking for this Court to deny giving Leave to Plaintiffs to
9
File their First Amended Complaint. Defendant fails to cite to any prejudice, as
10
11 there isn’t any prejudice to the Defendant; they can’t cite “bad faith” as Plaintiffs

12 filed in good-faith; or undue delay as the Case was just recently transferred to this
13
district. Plaintiffs have not previously amended their complaint. If Plaintiffs are
14
15 denied, they will be severely prejudiced as they will be foreclosed from redress and
16
recouping their damages suffered as a result of the Defendants actions.
17
18
10. As this Court is aware, this case was originally filed May 4, 2009 in

19 Pennsylvania. The Court Ordered the case Transferred which Defendant appealed
20
the Court’s transfer Order, which was not an appealable Order, holding up the
21
22 transfer for over nine [9] months. Defendant’s Appeal was Dismissed as the Court
23
lacked jurisdiction. There has been no question that Plaintiffs need to amend their
24
complaint to bring it in compliance with California laws; to add as “DOE”
25
26 Defendants parties recently discovered; and to add the new causes of actions.
27
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 6
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#:5683

1 11. As stated in Plaintiffs Motion, the United States Supreme Court, the
2
Ninth Circuit, and this Court have repeatedly reaffirmed that Leave to Amend is to
3
4 be Granted with "extreme liberality." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d
5 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
6
178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given);
7
8 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)
9
(“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors,
10
11 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”)

12 (emphasis in original); United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)
13
(courts should be guided by policy favoring decisions on the merits "rather than on
14
15 the pleadings or technicalities"); See also Moore, 3-15 Moore's Federal Practice -
16
Civil § 15.14 ("A liberal, pro-amendment ethos dominates the intent and judicial
17
18
construction of Rule 15(a)."). The primary factors relied upon by the Supreme

19 Court and the Ninth Circuit in denying a motion for leave to amend are "bad faith,
20
undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment." DCD
21
22 Programs, 833 F.2d at 186. None of these apply.
23
12. Although the undersigned was served by the ECF systems with Mr.
24
Marasigan, counsel for Defendant Orly Taitz, Esquire’s filings, Mr. Marasigan
25
26 failed to notice the undersigned on his Certificate of Service.
27
//
28 //

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 7
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 8 of 10 Page ID
#:5684

1 13. For the reasons stated herein and in Plaintiffs Notice of Motion,
2
Motion and Brief in support thereto, Plaintiffs respectfully Request this Court to
3
4 Grant their Motion for Leave to Amend.
5
Respectfully submitted,
6
7
Dated: May 24, 2011 /s/ Philip J. Berg
8 Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Pennsylvania I.D. 9867
9
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
10 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
11
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Telephone: (610) 825-3134
12 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
13
Attorney for Plaintiffs
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 8
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 9 of 10 Page ID
#:5685

1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire

2
Pennsylvania I.D. 9867
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
3 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
4 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Telephone: (610) 825-3134
5 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
8 SOUTHERN DIVISION
:
9 : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
LISA LIBERI, et al, :
10 Plaintiffs, : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW)
:
11 :
vs. : PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF
12 :
: SERVICE
13 ORLY TAITZ, et al, :
:
14 :
Defendants. :
15
16 I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
17
Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs
18
19 Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint was served through the ECF filing
20
system and/or mail as indicated below, this 24th day of May 2011 upon the
21
22 following:

23 Jayson Q. Marasigan
24 Dack Marasigan, LLP
23041 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 300
25 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
26 Email: jmarasigan@dacklaw.com
Served through the Court’s ECF Filing System
27
Attorney for Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 9
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 199 Filed 05/24/11 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#:5686

1 Orly Taitz
2
26302 La Paz Ste 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
3 Ph: (949) 683-5411
4 Fax: (949) 586-2082
Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and
5 Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
6 Served via the ECF Filing System
Attorney for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
7
8 The Sankey Firm, Inc.
2470 Stearns Street #162
9
Simi Valley, CA 93063
10 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
11
Neil Sankey
12 P.O. Box 8298
13 Mission Hills, CA 91346
By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
14
15 Sankey Investigations, Inc.
P.O. Box 8298
16
Mission Hills, CA 91346
17 By USPS Mail with Postage fully prepaid
18
19
/s/ Philip J. Berg
20
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
21 Pennsylvania I.D. 9867
22 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
23 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
24 Telephone: (610) 825-3134
E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
25
26
27
28

Liberi, et al Reply to Defendants Orly Taitz and Orly Taitz, Esquire Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for… 10