Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 67

RESPONSE by Irin Carmon, Gabby Darbyshire, Nick Denton, Gawker Media, Jezebel.com to MOTION by Plaintiff Meanith Huon to clarify 59 (Giskan, Oren)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
)
MEANITH HUON,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-against)
)
ABOVETHELAW.COM, DAVID LAT, ELIE
)
MYSTAL, BREAKINGMEDIA.COM, JOHN
)
LERNER, DAVID MINKIN, BREAKING MEDIA,)
JOHN DOES 1 TO 100, GAWKER MEDIA A/K/A )
GAWKER.COM, JEZEBEL.COM, NICK
)
DENTON, IRIN CARMON, GABY
)
DARBYSHIRE, JOHN DOES 101 TO 200,
)
LAWYERGOSSIP.COM, JOHN DOE NO. 201, )
NEWNATION.ORG A/K/A NEWNATION.TV
)
A/K/A NEW NATION NEWS, JOHN DOE NO. )
401, JOHN DOE NO. 402, JOHN DOE NO. 403, )
)
Defendants
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
1:11-CV-3054 (MEA JTG)

GAWKER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
PROPOSED ORDER EXCUSING PLAINTIFF FROM RESPONDING TO
GAWKER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Gawker Media a/k/a Gawker.com, Jezebel.com, Nick Denton, Irin
Carmon, and Gaby Darbyshire (collectively, “Gawker,” or “Defendants”), by their
attorneys, David Feige and Oren Giskan of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP,
move this court to require Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
1.

On August 1, 2011 Defendants received notice via US post that Plaintiff

had filed suit against them seeking 100 million dollars (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 113). As Plaintiff
sought a waiver of service of summons, the Gawker Defendants had 60 days in which to
respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. Thus on September 30, 2011, sixty (60) days after

receipt of service the Gawker defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants did not
seek an extension of time to respond and filed in a timely fashion.
2.

After Defendants spent significant time and expense to file a response to

Plaintiff’s complaint in a timley fashion, Plaintiff now seeks to be relieved from the
burden of responding to a motion to dismiss the very suit he himself filed.
3.

Among the grounds cited by Defendants for dismissal is that Plaintiff’s

claims violates the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (ICPA) 735 ILCS 110/5, which
protects speech in the face of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
The CPA sets up a procedure for the early resolution of a SLAPP. Its procedures apply
whenever a defendant files a motion – including a “motion to dismiss, for summary
judgment, or to strike” – “on the grounds that the claim is based on, relates to, or is in
response to any act or acts of the moving party in furtherance of the moving party’s rights
of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government.” 735 ILCS
110/10, 15. The CPA requires that “hearing and decision . . . occur within 90 days after
notice of the motion.” 735 ILCS 110/20(a) (emphasis added).
4.

In his prayer for delay, Mr. Huon notes that the Gawker Defendants have

had sixty days to move to file their motion to dismiss. While this is true, Defendants’
time to move to dismiss was governed entirely by Plaintiff’s decision to seek a waiver of
service. Had Plainitiff opted to spend the money to effect personal service he would have
recieved a faster response.
5.

In his prayer for delay, Plaintiff relies on his busy schedule as an assistant

general counsel and a full-time firm lawyer while simultaneously lamenting that he is
pro-se. That he would privilege his paying clients to the detriment of those he sues prose isn’t surprising, but it hardly places him among the plumbers, prisoners and other sorts

of pro-se plaintiffs whose struggle to master an arcane system legitimately affords them
additional deference.
6.

All parties to this suit including the court have an interest in the speedy

and just resolution to this matter.
7.

The Gawker Defendants ask this court to order the following briefing

schedule which will have the additional advantage of bringing the Gawker Defendants
onto a similar timetable as the other defendants in this matter:
Proposed Briefing Schedule
Friday, October 21, 2011 – Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dimiss
Monday, October 31, 2011 – Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s responsive brief
Thursday, November 10, 2011 – Hearing on the motions
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Gawker Defendants respectfully
request that the plaintiff’s request to delay his response to the Motion to Dismiss be
denied, and that the Court enter the briefing schedule set forth in paragraph 7 above.

October 4, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,
GAWKER MEDIA A/K/A gAWKER.COM,
JEZEBEL.COM, NICK DENTON, IRIN ARMON
& GABY DARBYSHIRE,
By: ____/S/ Oren Giskan_________
One of Defendants’ attorneys

Oren S. Giskan
[e-mail]
David Feige
[e-mail]
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON
& STEWART LLP
11 Broadway, Suite 2150
New York, NY 10004
[phone]/[phone] (fax)
Daniel Lynch (Ill. Bar No. 6202499)
[e-mail]
LYNCH & STERN LLP
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60606
[phone]/[phone] (fax)