Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00382/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00382-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

- 1 - 10cv382

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDIFAST, INC.; BRADLEY

MACDONALD,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-CV-382 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

MOTION TO FILE ONE

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO STRIKE

(Doc. No. 100)

vs.

BARRY MINKOW; FRAUD DISCOVERY

INSTITUTE, INC.; ROBERT L.

FITZPATRICK; TRACY COENEN;

SEQUENCE, INC.; WILLIAM LOBDELL;

IBUSINESS REPORTING; THOMAS

ZIEMANN,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for permission to file one opposition

to Defendants’ three motions to strike. (Doc. No. 100 (Mot.).) Also before the Court are Defendants

Tracy Coenen and Sequence, Inc.’s opposition (Doc. No. 101 (Coenen & Sequence Opp’n)),

Defendant Robert FitzPatrick’s opposition (Doc. No. 102 (FitzPatrick Opp’n)), and Plaintiffs’ reply

(Doc. No. 103 (Reply)). Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and good cause appearing,

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is GRANTED.

In April and May of 2010, Defendants Tracy Coenen; Sequence, Inc.; Robert FitzPatrick;

Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc.; William Lobdell; Barry Minkow; and iBusiness Reporting

(collectively, Moving Defendants) moved to strike Plaintiff’s complaint under California’s antiCase 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 104 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 10cv382

SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. (Doc. Nos. 7, 12, 19, 44.) On

April 28, 2010, Plaintiffs moved ex parte to continue the briefing schedule on Moving Defendants’

motions to strike. (Doc. No. 31.) On May 6, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to continue

the briefing schedule and granted the parties ninety days in which to conduct discovery on four limited

issues. (Doc. No. 46, at 9.) The Court further denied Defendants’ motions to strike without prejudice

and directed Defendants to refile their motions to strike after the close of the limited discovery period.

(Id.)

On November 9, 2010 and November 19, 2010, Moving Defendants refiled their motions to

strike. (Doc. Nos. 88, 97, 98.) On November 22, 2010, the Court set a briefing schedule on, inter

alia, Moving Defendants’ motions to strike. (Doc. No. 99.) Pursuant to the briefing schedule,

Plaintiffs’ oppositions to Defendants’ motions to strike are due by December 27, 2010. (Id. at 1.) On

December 6, 2010, Plaintiffs moved ex parte for leave to file one omnibus opposition to Defendants’

three motions to strike. (Doc. No. 100.)

Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(h), Plaintiff is entitled to file a separate twenty-five-page

opposition to each of Moving Defendants’ three motions. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(h). Plaintiff requests

leave to file one sixty-page opposition to Moving Defendants’ three motions to “ease the burden on

the Court and avoid the duplication otherwise necessitated by the nature of the allegations and the

causes of action.” (Mot. 2.) Defendants Coenen, Sequence, Inc., and FitzPatrick (collectively,

Opposing Defendants) oppose Plaintiff’s motion on various grounds. (See Coenen & Sequence

Opp’n; FitzPatrick Opp’n.)

First, Opposing Defendants argue that allowing Plaintiffs to file one opposition to Moving

Defendants’ motion “is contrary to the goals the State Legislature intended to effectuate when it

enacted California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 because it will increase the time and

expense Defendants will incur in responding to Plaintiffs’ opposition.” (Coenen & Sequence Opp’n

3; accord FitzPatrick Opp’n 1–2.) This argument lacks merit. Opposing Defendants protestations

regarding the costs of litigation lack credibility in light of the sheer volume of their motions to strike.

(See Doc. Nos. 88–96 (FitzPatrick Mot. to Strike); 97 (Coenen & Sequence Mot. to Strike).) And, in

any event, Opposing Defendants may recover their attorneys fees and costs if they prevail on their

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 104 Filed 12/14/10 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 Defendants Coenen and Sequence Inc.’s further argument that they “will be forced address

arguments that are inapplicable to them and their individual motions” lacks merit. (Coenen &

Sequence Opp’n 4.) In their replies, each Moving Defendant or group of Moving Defendants need

only address Plaintiffs’ arguments as they pertain to that Moving Defendant’s or group of Moving

Defendants’ motion.

- 3 - 10cv382

motions, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)—an outcome Opposing Defendants suggest is likely (see

Coenen & Sequence Opp’n 3; FitzPatrick Opp’n 2–3 (“Plaintiffs, having completed their discovery,

know that they cannot satisfy their burden of proof as to each specific Defendant . . . .”).)

Second, Opposing Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause to file

one opposition, and that they will be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are allowed to file one opposition.

(Coenen & Sequence Opp’n 3–4; FitzPatrick Opp’n 2–5.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs point out

that the factual bases of their claims against the various Moving Defendants substantially overlap.

(Reply 2–3.) And the Court assumes, in light of Moving Defendants failure to raise any claim of

misjoinder, that Plaintiffs’ claims against Moving Defendants “aris[e] out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 21

(governing misjoinder of parties). Thus, good cause exists to allow Plaintiffs to file one opposition.

Nor is the Court convinced that Opposing Defendants will be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are

allowed to file one opposition. Opposing Defendants argue that “the issues presented by each antiSLAPP motion is [sic] distinct to each Defendant. . . . Combining individual arguments relevant to

each separate anti-SLAPP motion is not efficient and does not simply [sic] the issues.” (Coenen &

Sequence Opp’n 4; accord FitzPatrick Opp’n 3–5 (“If all the statements made by each Defendant are

mixed into one Brief, it would create more ambiguity and confusion not less.”); see also Coenen &

Sequence Opp’n 4 (“Both Defendants and the Court will have to sort out which arguments apply to

which Defendants.”).) Opposing Defendants apparently assume that the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel

cannot distinguish arguments applicable to some Moving Defendants’ motions from arguments

applicable to all Moving Defendants’ motions. Although the Court appreciates Opposing Defendants

consideration, the Court assures Opposing Defendants that it is fully capable of distinguishing among

the various Moving Defendants. And to alleviate Opposing Defendants concerns regarding potential

confusion, the Court will order Plaintiffs’ counsel to clearly distinguish which motion or motions its

arguments in opposition apply to.1

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 104 Filed 12/14/10 Page 3 of 4
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

2

 Additionally, to facilitate the Court’s review of Plaintiffs’ opposition, Plaintiffs shall submit

the chambers courtesy copy required by Section 2(e) of the Court’s Electronic Case Filing

Administrative Policies and Procedures manual in a three-ring binder with all exhibits tabbed.

- 4 - 10cv382

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs SHALL FILE one

opposition to Moving Defendants’ motions. Plaintiffs’ opposition SHALL clearly identify which

Moving Defendants’ motion or motions its arguments apply to.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 104 Filed 12/14/10 Page 4 of 4