[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: (Cynowa v. CSSS, Inc., et al.) Draft reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss



Lisa,

 

I wanted to get back to you and provide you feedback in response to your three comments:

 

1.                  The length of time that the case has been pending was an argument we raised in response to the previous motion that Cynowa filed for leave to amend his complaint.  For the brief we are filing today, we addressed a related point in the Conclusion in the context of discovery being closed, all the proofs now known, and Cynowa still not being able to state a claim.

 

2.                  Whether there is evidence that the statements were disseminated beyond the police officer is an issue that goes beyond this type of motion.  Because this is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court limits its review to what the complaint states and does not consider evidence outside the complaint.

 

3.                  Similar to the previous comment, proof of malice does not come into play.  Our motion in respect to the absolute privilege is based on the application of the privilege regardless of allegations or proof malice.  In fact, because the law says that the absolute privilege applies to statements to police even when malice is present, we do not need to take on whether or not there is evidence of malice here.  We can assume malice exists, and the privilege should still protect statements to the police.

 

I hope this helps.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Kevin

 


From: Wolford Lisa [mailto:lisa@csss.net]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 6:44 PM
To: John Murray; slater@billslater.com
Cc: Kevin Duff; haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: RE: (Cynowa v. CSSS, Inc., et al.) Draft reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss

 

my notes are attached as well as few spelling errors

 

Lisa N. Wolford

CSSS.NET

402-393-8059w

402-393-1825f

SDVOB, 8(a)/SDB & WOB - TS clearances

 


From: John Murray
Sent: Fri 11/04/2011 5:27 PM
To: lisa@csss.net; slater@billslater.com
Cc: 'Kevin Duff'; haytham@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: (Cynowa v. CSSS, Inc., et al.) Draft reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss

All:

 

Attached please find a draft of our reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss all claims against Lisa as well as all claims based on Bill’s alleged statement to Officer Adrowski, which we will file on Monday. Please review the draft and we’re happy to hear your comments and/or concerns.  Ideally we’d appreciate any comments on the draft by Monday morning.  Thanks and have a great weekend.

 

 

Regards,

 

John E. Murray, Esq.

Associate Attorney

Rachlis Durham Duff Adler & Peel, LLC

542 South Dearborn Street, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60605

 

Phone: (312) 275-0338

Fax: (312) 733-3952

Email: jmurray@rddlaw.net

Website: http://www.rddlaw.net/

 

RACHLIS DURHAM DUFF ADLER & PEEL, LLC: E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This transmission may be: (1) subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3) strictly confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this information.  If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message.  Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.