Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. et al
Filing
23
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss the case against Garland E. Harris filed by Garland E. Harris. Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2012 01:00 PM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Responses due by 5/25/2012. Replies due by 6/1/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2012)
~.~n~ ~ ~--·· ~·
.-
-~---:>~. ....·.:
•
'"~''"-·
- ~---'-<.·
-··;-·· ---:
.
··-~·~.
, .•
,,._... ,·• ·t· . •'J•
,_,
1
Address:
.~
I
Yourname: Garland E. Harris
2
.
noll Adams St.
rH· Palm Beach, FL 33407
3
PhoneNumb er:
4
5 E-mail Address:
~12-334-8440
~arlandeharris@gmail.com
6 ProSe
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
~.~:t:'' """' fd
) Case Number: , V 12 1721
.
~
11
Plaintiff( s),
12
13
· · ·-~·.
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
) TO
)
) DISMISS THE CASE AGAINST
vs.
)
) GARLAND E. HARRIS
14
G
15
~
16
~ AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
17
ir--_ _ _ _____;_ _
) THEREOF
18
AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
19
~
DATE:
~
Defendant(s).
TIME:
) COURTROOM: ~~======;;;;:::;!
)
) JUDGE: Hon.
20
________________________)
22
23
24
25
at [time]=·~ M
P======~' or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in th
courtroom of the Honorable Oudge 's name] AUREL BEEL R
26
27
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
CASENo.(:;V 121721
ISMISS
t PAGE[2]oF0[VLSPTEMPLATE]
. ·· .. · ''·~·.
1
2
3
I
7
The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, th
8
Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, the Declaration(s) of names o
9
eo le who wrote declarations Z HE DEFENDANT - GARLAND E. HARRIS.
10
11
12
and the [Proposed] Order filed herewith.
13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
14
Before completing this section, read Chapter 7 of the Pro Se Handbook.
This section should include the following separate parts. Number each part.
:.<"""
' • ~·
"
.,-,..
1. A table of contents and a table of authorities, if the memorandum i
longer than ten pages;
2. A statement of the issues you want the court to decide;
3. A brief statement of the facts that are relevant to this motion;
4. Your argument for why the judge should grant this motion. Includ
citations to relevant cases and law. When you refer to specific facts,
those facts should also appear in a DECLARATION, which you mus
submit with this motion. After you state a fact in this section of th
motion, state what paragraph ofthe DECLARATION contains thefac
you are using to support your position.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Tfie efenoant, Garlano . arris, an Inoivi ·ua an resioent oftfie State of
24
lorida, respectfully moves this Court for an order Clismissing this action for the
25
easons stated below:
27
~T :; O:.;. T~ =-7 MI S..: . .
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MO ;:;,.l..:::.N...;:; O:. .c...;:I S..:..= S-=.---=;;---------~
CASENO.
V 121721
; PAGEG]oFGJ[VLSPTEMPLATE]
t t~..tj \
1
[Insert as many copies of this page as you need. }.Jake extra copies before you
2
write on it.}
3
~.~~~.
1. LacK of suoject matter juris ICtion: llie oefenoant argues tliat llie Court oes
f'4. not have· the legal"authority to hear the kind of lawsuit that the plaintiffliled,
5
ursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The Court is kindly reminded that The United
6
States Congress has placed an additional barrier to diversity jurisdiction, the
7
amount in controversy requirement. This is a minimum amount of money which
8
he parties must be contesting is owed to them. As of mid 2007, under 28 U.S.C.
9
§1332(a), a claim for relief must EXCEED the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive
1o
of interest and costs and without considering counterclaims. The Plaintiff states on
11
page 6 of their complaint "... efforts to combat the wrongdoing ofHarris, at least
12
$75,000", which does not meet the minimum standards of Diversity Jurisdiction.
13
14
«.M~"·"""' ·fS ·
Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges on page 6 (C) 26. that a Terms of Service
· greement or- TOS was entered into by the Defendant and page 13 (H) 59. "The
16
TOS is a valid, enforceable contract. .. " and further page 13 (H) 57 "Harris violates
17
he Twitter TOS ... ". Contract law is a state matter and not a matter that should
18
waste the valuable time of the United States Federal Court System.
19
20
Finally the Plaintiffs use of"spam" does not comply with the CAN-SPAM Act
21
of2003 (Pub. L. 108-187, S. 877) which is specifically addressed to email
22
messaging. The Defendant respectfully suggests that the Court has no jurisdiction
23
in the case of a "fresh definition" of a word that is defined in settled law.
24
Declaration Paragraphs 1,2,4, 7 support the facts in this section.
25
27
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MO:.T.!.::~.:...T. O r.==r=S S~::;:;----;:::;;;;-___...;~--_::_-----_.:l~l
. !. ION .!. :::::... IS MI :...:
CASE NO. V 12 1721
; PAGE0 OF
GJ [VLSP TEMPLATE]
1
[Insert as many copies ofthis page as you need. Make extra copies before you
2
write on it.]
3
4
~?f:!·ll"'l· ~··· ·
2. acl< of petsonal juriS tction over llie oefen
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?