Pacific Law Center et al v. Saadat-Nejad

Filing 85

Response in Opposition re 82 Declaration, filed by Solomon Ward Seidenwurm and Smith LLP. (McIntyre, Edward) Modified on 8/19/2008 to link to proper doc (mkz).

Pacific Law Center et al v. Saadat-Nejad

Doc. 85

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

EDWARD J. MCINTYRE [SBN 80402] [e-mail] MICHAEL M. VASSEGHI [SBN 210737] [e-mail] SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1200 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC LAW CENTER, a Professional Law Corporation; and SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP, Plaintiffs, v. SHAHROKH SAADAT-NEJAD, Defendant.

CASE NO. 07-CV-0460 JLS (POR) SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DECLARATION ADDRESSING THIS COURT'S ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN INAPPROPRIATE Date: To Be Determined Time: To Be Determined Courtroom: 6 Hon. Janis L. Sammartino

P:00436780:90126.015

SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP'S OPPOSITION TO SHAHROKH SAADAT-NEJAD'S DECLARATION

07-CV-0460 JLS (POR)
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
P:00436780:90126.015

I SAADAT-NEJAD FAILED TO SHOW WHY A PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE On July 16, 2008, this Court ordered the parties to brief three issues: 1) what constitutes bad faith intent to profit under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act; 2) the legality of "gripe sites;" 3) if Saadat-Nejad had faith intent; but no longer does, can the Court still permanently enjoin him from creating a site that incorporate the words "Solomon Ward" and "Pacific Law Center." Solomon Ward submitted a timely brief addressing these issues and explaining why a permanent injunction is appropriate. Saadat-Nejad filed a four page declaration that did not address any issue the Court ordered briefed. For that matter, Saadat-Nejad's declaration did not even address any issue remotely relevant to this case. Although federal courts provide for a liberal construction of a complaint when a party pro se files it,1 this does nothing for Saadat-Nejad. First, his "brief" was not a complaint. More importantly, even if the Court were to give Saadat-Nejad's declaration the most liberal reading, it still falls short and gives no reason why a permanent injunction should not issue. "[P]ro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court's orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."2 Furthermore, this Court has patiently explained at length to Saadat-Nejad that "the law doesn't say that [the Court] can make exceptions for people who self-represent" and warned Saadat-Nejad that he has a "heavy, heavy burden."3 The seven exhibits attached to Saadat-Nejad's declaration contain no new information for the court to consider in deciding whether a permanent injunction should issue and Saadat-Nejad has failed to offer any legal support or argument that he did not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act. Consequently, Solomon Ward requests that this Court make its preliminary injunction permanent.
1

2

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir.1986) citing to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1994). -107-CV-0460 JLS (POR) SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP'S OPPOSITION TO SHAHROKH SAADAT-NEJAD'S DECLARATION

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
3

II THE COURT SHOULD NOT GRANT SAADAT-NEJAD ANY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO SOLOMON WARD'S MOTION On August 11, 2008 Saadat-Nejad filed a motion seeking more time to oppose Solomon Ward's motion now before the Court because defendant Pacific Law Center did not file a motion. Even if this Court is inclined to give Saadat-Nejad time, it should be limited to his opposition to Pacific Law Center's motion, if it ever files one. Solomon Ward timely moved for a permanent injunction and complied with this Court's order. SaadatNejad had ample time to respond. DATED: August 14, 2008 SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP

By:

/s/ Edward J. McIntyre EDWARD J. MCINTYRE MICHAEL M. VASSEGHI Attorneys for Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP

28

Court Reporter's Transcript of the June 12, 2008 proceedings p.14 lines 5-15. -207-CV-0460 JLS (POR) SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP'S OPPOSITION TO SHAHROKH SAADAT-NEJAD'S DECLARATION

P:00436780:90126.015

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
P:00436780:90126.015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I caused the SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DECLARATION ADDRESSING THIS COURT'S ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN INAPPROPRIATE to be served in the following manner: Electronic Mail Notice List The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. Electronic Mail Notice List Robert F. Clarke, Esq. (SBN 79881) Phillips & Associates 3030 N. Third Street, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Pacific Law Center The following party is not on the list to receive e-mail notices from the Court. We are emailing copies to Mr. Saadat-Nejad at [e-mail]. In addition, we served hard copies via Federal Express: Shahrokh Saadat-Nejad 3713 Mt. Ashmun Place San Diego, CA 92111 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS /s/ Edward J. McIntyre EDWARD J. MCINTYRE

-307-CV-0460 JLS (POR) SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP'S OPPOSITION TO SHAHROKH SAADAT-NEJAD'S DECLARATION