Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al

Filing 165

Opposition to Request to Waive Oral Argument in opposition to re: REQUEST to Waive Oral Argument On Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment 164 and Request for Enlargement of Time to FIle Brief filed by Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, Iliana Llaneras, Raymond Mobrez. (Borodkin, Lisa)

Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al

Doc. 165

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

DANIEL F. BLACKERT, ESQ., CSB No. 255021 LISA J. BORODKIN, ESQ. CSB No. 196412 Asia Economic Institute 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone [phone] Facsimile [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Asia Economic Institute LLC, Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona LLC, d/b/a as BADBUSINESS ) ) BUREAU and/or ) BADBUSINESSBUREAU.COM ) and/or RIP OFF REPORT and/or ) RIPOFFREPORT.COM; BAD ) BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, organized ) ) and existing under the laws of St. ) Kitts/Nevis, West Indies; EDWARD MAGEDSON an individual, and DOES ) ) 1 through 100, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, a California LLC; RAYMOND MOBREZ an individual; and ILIANA LLANERAS, an individual, Case No.: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [L.R. 7-15] Date: November 1, 2010 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 6

Pl's Oppo. to Def' Request to Waive oral argument -0-

10-cv-1360

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC, Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras ("Plaintiffs") hereby oppose Defendants' Request to Waive Oral Argument on the following grounds: · Plaintiffs request oral argument on their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. · Plaintiffs do and have oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs filed declarations, request for judicial notice and a separate statement in opposition, and intend to file a Rule 56(f) motion and brief. · Defendants requested Plaintiffs to delay seeking Rule 56(f) relief, until after Defendants had filed their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs honored the request. · Defendants agreed to shortened notice on Plaintiffs' contemplated motion under Rule 56(f) so as to preserve the November 1, 2010 hearing date. · Defendants filed 3 additional motions during the one week that Plaintiffs were given to file their opposition to the motion for summary judgment that were not expressly ordered by the Court: an anti-SLAPP motion to strike [DN-153] which this Court has previously denied, and two Rule 11 motions [DN-157, DN-158] the Defendants previously withdrew and were stricken, respectively. There is no urgency on the Rule 11 motions. · Defendants filed a previous Rule 11 motion [DN-135], which Plaintiffs briefed and opposed [DN-141]. On September 29, 2010, Defendants withdrew the fully briefed Rule 11 motion [DN-155][156] and re-filed it the next day, September 30, 2010 [DN-157]. · This Court had previously stricken Defendants' other Rule 11 motion. [DN139]. Defendants refilled the previously stricken Rule 11 motion on September 30, 2010. [DN-158]. · Defendants' tactics are oppressive and appear calculated to deprive Plaintiffs from an adjudication on the merits.
Pl's Oppo. to Def' Request to Waive oral argument -110-cv-1360

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

· Plaintiffs made a reasonable request for a brief extension of time to respond to these four motions, and Defendants unreasonable refused to consent to a one-week extension for the brief on the motion for summary judgment. · Defendants will not be prejudiced, as Defendants' four motions will be heard on November 1, 2010, along with Plaintiffs' contemplated motion under Rule 56(f) to deny or continue the motion for summary judgment. · Plaintiffs will and hereby do apply formally for a one week enlargement of time to file the opposition brief on the motion for summary judgment and will move to set aside any default if so required. Dated: October 6, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Lisa J. Borodkin Lisa J. Borodkin Daniel F. Blackert Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Pl's Oppo. to Def' Request to Waive oral argument -2-

10-cv-1360