Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02769/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02769-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-07-2769 BRIEFING ORDER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK NEMIROFSKY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEOK KI KIM,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 07-2769 JL

BRIEFING ORDER

On Plaintiff Nemirofsky’s ’s motion to dismiss Defendant Seok Ki Kim’s counterclaim

for abuse of process (Docket # 85), Plaintiff for the first time in his Reply brief raised the

issue of the litigation privilege as an affirmative defense to this counterclaim. The Court

hereby grants to Kim an opportunity to respond, within twenty days of the issuance of this

Order. 

The Court is particularly interested in the following cases: Rusheen v. Cohen, 37

Cal.4th 1048 (2006);Brown v. Kennard, 94 Cal. App. 4th 40 (2001); Profile Structures, Inc.

v. Long Beach Bldg. Material Co., 181 Cal. App. 3d 437 (1986), and the following

questions: (1) what, if any, non-litigation alternatives to the Abuse of Process claim were

available to Kim to address the allegedly excessive TPO, and (2) whether Nemirofsky has

Case 3:07-cv-02769-JL Document 126 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-07-2769 BRIEFING ORDER Page 2 of 2

waived the affirmative defense of the litigation privilege as provided by Rule 8(c), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure by not raising the issue in his 12(f) motion but only in his Reply?

Nemirofsky may respond within fourteen days of service of Kim’s response and the

matter will be deemed submitted at that time. The parties should limit their briefs to no

more than fifteen pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 21, 2008 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIVIL\07-2769\Order-briefing99.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02769-JL Document 126 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2