 |
| DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY UTAH- October 24, 2014 Diamond Ranch Academy vs. Susan Schofield/Michael Schofield Diamond Ranch Academy's attorneys finally received their answer to their lawsuit filed against 'public' figures (real or imagined) Susan and Michael Schofield. Better late, than never! OPINION: In reading the Schofield's answer to allegations filed with the court, it makes one ponder... whatever is in the water in Utah--do not drink it. All allegations are denied, claiming "public privilege, hyperbole," etc. "Trial by jury" is requested. Indeed, if this goes to trial... so will 'Holocausting kids,''Japanese Internment Camps,' and 'Death Camps' along with other allegations inherent in Ms. Schofield's 'hyperbole' directed at Diamond Ranch Academy. TAKE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED Although this has no Adam's Rib potential --this trial would be worth the flight... Did Abbott and Costello do a court gig? Wait... perhaps The Three Stooges. THE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT: *Modified into MS Word document. Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 12 David C. Reymann (8495) (dreymann@parrbrown.com) Rachel Lassig Wertheimer (13893) (rwertheimer@parrbrown.com) PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Attorneys for Defendants Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC., Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN SCHOFIELD, an individual, and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, an individual, Defendants. ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS SUSAN SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD Case No. 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Judge Ted Stewart The Schofields respond to the specifically numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows, specifically reserving the right to amend and/or supplement their responses as further discovery and investigation may warrant. [JURISDICTION] 3. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny the allegations, including that this Court has personal jurisdiction over them. 4. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny that this Court has personal jurisdiction over them. 2 Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 12 [VENUE] [PARTIES] 7. Admit. 8. Admit. 9. The allegation in this paragraph does not require a response. [FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS] 11. The Schofields have not, to their knowledge, ever spoken to any employee or owner of DRA, and therefore admit. 12. Deny. 15. Deny. 16. Deny. 3 Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 12 18. Deny. 19. Deny. [FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION] [(Libel against all Defendants)] 22. Deny. 23. Deny. 24. Deny. 25. Deny. 26. Deny. 27. Deny. 28. Deny. 29. Deny. 31. Deny. 32. Deny. 33. Deny. 35. Deny. 36. Deny. 37. Deny. 38. Deny. 39. Deny. 40. Deny. 41. Deny. 42. Deny. 43. Deny. [THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION] [(Slander against all Defendants)] 46. Deny. 47. Deny. 48. Deny. 49. Deny. 50. Deny. 51. Deny. 52. Deny. 53. Deny. 5 [(Slander Per Se against all Defendants)] 54. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 56. Deny. 57. Deny. 58. Deny. 59. Deny. 60. Deny. 61. Deny. 62. Deny. 63. Deny. 64. Deny. 65. Deny. 66. Deny. 67. Deny. [FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION] 6 72. Deny. 73. Deny. 74. Deny. 75. Deny. 76. Deny. 77. Deny. THIRD DEFENSE The Schofields deny each and every allegation in the Complaint that is not expressly admitted herein. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Schofields. FIFTH DEFENSE Venue in this Court is improper. SIXTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. SEVENTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by laches. EIGHTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by estoppel and/or waiver. Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 8 of 12 Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because the statements in the complained-of internet radio broadcasts and other sources are true or substantially true. Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because the statements in the complained-of internet radio broadcasts and other sources are incapable of conveying defamatory meaning, constitute nonactionable opinion, and/or constitute rhetorical hyperbole. ELEVENTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the common law fair comment and/or fair report privileges. Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under Utah Code § 45-2-3 and/or § 45-2-10 and/or California Civil Code § 47. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the common law privilege concerning publications made to protect the legitimate interest of the publisher. FOURTEENTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are privileged because the complained-of internet radio broadcasts and other sources concerned matters of legitimate public interest and were published by the Schofields without malice. 8 Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. SIXTEENTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under Article I, sections 1 and 15 of the Utah Constitution and/or under Article I, sections 1 and 2 of the California Constitution. Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the incremental harm doctrine. EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE DRA has suffered no compensable damages as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct. NINETEENTH DEFENSE DRA has failed to mitigate any damages it claims to have sustained as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct. TWENTIETH DEFENSE Some or all of the damages of which DRA complains were the result of the fault and/or actions of DRA itself, were the result of the fault and/or actions of persons or entities over whom or over which the Schofields had no control, and/or were the result of intervening causes. Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under 47 U.S.C. § 230 and/or Utah Code § 45-2-5. 9 Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because DRA has failed to adequately plead and/or cannot prove special damages. TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE At all times relevant to this action the Schofields exercised the requisite degree of care and prudence in undertaking any of the conduct of which DRA complains. TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because DRA is, or at all times relevant to this action was, a general or limited-purpose public figure, and the Schofields did not act with actual malice. TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the single publication rule. TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE DRA’s claims are without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith, but instead are brought to chill the Schofields’ valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. DRA’s claims arise from the Schofields’ acts in furtherance of their right of free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue. As a result, DRA’s claims are subject to a special motion to strike under California Code The Schofields hereby demand a jury for all issues triable thereto. DATED this 24th day of October 2014. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. /s/ Rachel Lassig Wertheimer David C. Reymann Rachel Lassig Wertheimer Attorneys for Defendants Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield 11 |
↧
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. THE SCHOFIELDS - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF DEFAMATION ET AL
↧