Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 153

STATUS Report of Reassignment by Plaintiff (with A Corrected View of Exhibit A) by Meanith Huon (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Huon, Meanith)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MEANITH HUON,
Plaintiff,
v.

ABOVETHELAW.COM,

et. al.
Defendants

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1: 11-cv-3054
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF’S REASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT
PREFATORY NOTE
On August 3, the Court ordered that the parties “prepare and file a joint
status report, not to exceed five pages, no later than August 17, 2012”. (Docket
No. 150.)
On August 7, 2012, Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, emailed all counsel of
record that he would circulate a proposed draft for comments and changes.
Group Exhibit “A”. On August 13, 2012, Monday, Mr. Huon circulated the
proposed Joint Reassignment Status Report to all counsel for comments or
changes. Group Exhibit “A” and asked for dates for a FRCP 26(f) conference.
None of the counsel for Defendants have responded.
Mr. Huon submits Plaintiff’s Reassignment Status Report:

I.

Nature of the Case

A.
Identify all attorneys of record for each party, and indicate their
roles (e.g., lead trial counsel, of counsel, local counsel, etc.).
(i) For Plaintiff, Meanith Huon:
Meanith Huon
Huon Law Firm
P.O. Box 441
Chicago, IL 60690
[phone]
[e-mail]
(ii) For Defendants, Breaking Media, Breakingmedia.com, David Lat, David
Minkin, Elie Mystal, John Lerner (“the Above the Law” Defendants):
Steven L. Baron
Steven P. Mandell

Mandell Menkes LLC
One North Franklin
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(iii) For the Defendants, Gawker Media, Jezebel.com, Gabby Darbyshire
Irin Carmon, Nick Denton (“ the Jezebel Defendants”):
David L. Feige
Oren S. Giskan
Giskan, Solotartoff Anderson & Stewart
11 Broadway
Suite 2150
New York, NY 10004
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Amy J. Hansen
Daniel Francis Lynch
Lynch and Stern
150 S. Wacker
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
312-445-4622
312-896-5883 (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

B.

State the basis for federal jurisdiction and indicate whether any
party disputes federal jurisdiction.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
28U.S.C. Section 1332, as a result of the diversity of the parties, and pursuant to the
Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). The matter in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest. Venue is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1391 (b). A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred within the district.
On information and belief, none of the defendants have raised the issue of
jurisdiction in their motions to dismiss.
On August 14, 2012, the Court ordered:
“Plaintiff Meanith Huon’s Second Amended Complaint [22] is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is granted leave to re-file a
Third Amended Complaint on or before 9/12/12, addressing the jurisdictional issues noted
in the [Court’s] Statement . . .” (Docket No. 151.)

C.
Generally describe
complaint and any counterclaims.

the nature

of the claims

asserted

m the

Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging False
Light, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, Defamation Per Se,
Cyberstalking, Civil Conspiracy arising out of alleged defamatory statements published by
the Defendants on the Internet.
D.

Describe the relief sought by the plaintiff(s).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in excess of
75,000.00 and the transfer of the Defendants’ domain names to Plaintiff.
E.

Identify any parties that have not been served.

Plaintiff has not served Defendants, newnation.org, John Does No. 1
to 100 (registered users, writers, or editors of Abovethelaw.com who posted
defamatory comments), 201 (owner of Lawyergossip.com), 401, 402, 403
(John Doe No. 401 a/k/a White Sail, John Doe No. 402 a/k/a Vorlos, and John
Doe No. 403 a/k/a Tricknologist, are registered users of Newnation.tv) 100 to
200 (registered users, writers, editors of Jezebel.com who posted defamatory
comments), Lawyergossip.com.
2.

Pending Motions and Case Plan

A.
Briefly describe all pending motions, including the date the motion
and associated briefs were filed (or the briefing schedule, if briefing has not yet
been completed).
On or about September 21, 2011, the Above the Law Defendants filed its Motion
to Dismiss (Docket No. 35). On or about September 27, 2011, the Jezebel Defendants
filed its Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 57). The motions have been fully briefed and the
parties are waiting for the Court’s ruling.

B.
Briefly describe the discovery that has been taken (if any), the
discovery that remains to be taken (if any), and any operative schedule governing
discovery. Also indicate whether the discovery schedule has previously been
extended and, if so, how many times and by what period(s) of time.
The parties have not conferred pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and 16(b) and have not
made any FRCP 26(a) disclosures. Plaintiff has requested dates for counsels for all parties
to have a 26(f) conference.
On or about August 24, 2011, Plaintiff had a discovery conference with the Above
the Law Defendants’ counsel. The Above the Law Defendants took the position that
“The Above The Law Defendants understand from the Court’s August 23 [2011] order
extending their deadline to respond to the complaint and rescheduling the status
conference to October 13, 2011, that no discovery plan is required at this time.”

C.

Briefly describe any substantive rulings that have been entered.

No substantive rulings have been entered.
D.
Identify any substantive or significant procedural motions that any
party anticipates filing prior to trial.

E.

With respect to a trial:
(1)

Indicate whether there is a jury demand;

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of 12 persons.
(2)

Estimate the length of the trial; and

7 days.
(3)
Provide the earliest date as to which the parties agree that
the case will be ready for trial.
Plaintiff has requested dates for a 26(f) conference with Defendants but
has not received a response. Plaintiff anticipates he will need at least 9 months to
complete fact discovery and anticipates the case will be ready for trial by September 1,
2013.

3.

Referrals and Settlement

A.
Identify the assigned Magistrate Judge and state whether the case
has been referred for discovery supervision, a settlement conference, and/or any
other purpose.
Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. The case was referred for ruling on matters related
to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, such as adjusting page limitations, setting briefing
scheduled, striking or producing exhibits attached to Defendants’ motion.
Judge Gilbert has not entered any orders related to discovery.
B.
State whether any settlement discussions have occurred and the
status of any settlement discussions.
No settlement discussions have been initiated.
C.
Indicate whether the parties jointly believe that a settlement
conference would be productive at this time.
The parties does not wish to initiate settlement discussions at this time.
D.
Advise whether counsel have informed their respective clients
about the possibility of consenting to proceed before the assigned Magistrate
Judge.
Plaintiff cannot consent to proceeding before the Magistrate Judge at this time.

4.

Other Information

A.
Provide any other information that the parties believe is pertinent
to the Court's understanding of the status of the case.
B.
hearing.

Please advise whether any party requests that the Court set a status

Plaintiff has requested dates for a 26(f) conference from counsel for all
Defendants but have not received a response. A status conference in this case is set for

August 23, 2012. Mr. Huon requests a conference to obtain dates from counsel for all
Defendants for a 26(f) conference.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Meanith Huon
Meanith Huon
PO Box 441
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
IL ARDC. No.: 6230996

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 16th day of August, 2012, I caused to be served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S REASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT, by
causing copies of same to be served electronically on all counsel of record on or before
August 16, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Meanith Huon
Meanith Huon
PO Box 441
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]