Source: http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/10/
Timestamp: 2020-03-31 16:42:01
Document Index: 130712623

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 47', '§ 230', '§ 45', '§ 425']

Jillie's Take!: October 2014
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. THE SCHOFIELDS - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF DEFAMATION ET AL
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!
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)
Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.,
SUSAN SCHOFIELD, an individual, and
MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, an individual,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS SUSAN
SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD
(Jury Demanded)
Case No. 1:14-cv-00103-DBP
Defendants Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield (collectively, the “Schofields”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the Complaint against them filed on or about August 28, 2014 (“Complaint”), by Plaintiff Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc. (“DRA”), and for their defenses state and aver as follows:
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 12
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.
[NATURE OF ACTION]
1. Admit that DRA seeks to recover damages for allegedly defamatory statements made by the Schofields but deny that DRA has stated any proper cause of action against the Schofields. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny that DRA is a therapeutic boarding school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane, Utah. Deny each and every remaining allegation.
2. 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 subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
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.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 12
5. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the propriety of venue in this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny the allegations, including that venue is proper in this Court.
6. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.
7. Admit.
9. The allegation in this paragraph does not require a response.
[FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS]
10. Admit.
11. The Schofields have not, to their knowledge, ever spoken to any employee or owner of DRA, and therefore admit.
12. Deny.
13. Allege that the publications referred to in this paragraph, to the extent they exist, speak for themselves, deny all allegations inconsistent with their full content and context, and deny all remaining allegations.
14. Deny.
16. Deny.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 12
18. Deny.
[FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION]
[(Libel against all Defendants)]
20. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
23. Deny.
25. Deny.
26. Deny.
27. Deny.
28. Deny.
29. Deny.
[SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION]
[(Libel Per Se against all Defendants)]
30. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
31. Deny.
32. Deny.
33. Deny.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 12
34. 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)]
44. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
45. Deny.
46. Deny.
47. Deny.
48. Deny.
49. Deny.
50. Deny.
51. Deny.
52. Deny.
53. Deny.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 6 of 12
[FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION]
[(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.
55. Deny.
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]
[(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against all Defendants)]
68. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
69. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 7 of 12
70. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.
71. Deny.
72. Deny.
73. Deny.
74. Deny.
75. Deny.
76. Deny.
77. Deny.
The Schofields deny each and every allegation in the Complaint that is not expressly admitted herein.
This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Schofields.
Venue in this Court is improper.
Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by laches.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 9 of 12
Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
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.
DRA has suffered no compensable damages as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct.
DRA has failed to mitigate any damages it claims to have sustained as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct.
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.
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 10 of 12
Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because DRA has failed to adequately plead and/or cannot prove special damages.
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
Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 11 of 12
of Civil Procedure § 425.16. Upon prevailing on the special motion to strike the Schofields are entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, the Schofields demand that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and on the merits; that the Schofields be awarded their costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this matter; and that the Schofields be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
The Schofields hereby demand a jury for all issues triable thereto.
DATED this 24th day of October 2014.
/s/ Rachel Lassig Wertheimer
Rachel Lassig Wertheimer
TO READ COMPLAINT-->DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. SUSAN SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD
http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/09/diamond-ranch-academy-files-defamaton.html
Posted by Jilliestake at 10:26 PM 1 CLICK TO READ/POST COMMENTS HERE
Labels: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, BIPOLAR NATION RADIO, Diamond Ranch Academy, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY SUES MICHAEL AND SUSAN SCHOFIELD, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. SUSAN SCHOFIELD MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, Inc., JANI FOUNDATION
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. THE SCHOFIELDS - ANSWER ...