Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document 75 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS -i- Page SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2 II. ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................... 4 A. Freshwater’s Defamation Counterclaim Is Entirely Unfounded And Therefore Should Be Dismissed ............................................................................ 4 1. The Dennises Did Not Make Many Of The Allegedly Defamatory Statements And Therefore Cannot Be Held Liable For Them .................. 6 2. The Statements That Zach Dennis Made During The Termination Hearing Are Protected By An Absolute Privilege, Or In the Alternative, Are Qualifiedly Privileged..................................................... 8 3. The Statements That The Dennises Made To HR On Call Investigators Are Also Protected By A Qualified Privilege .................... 10 4. Freshwater Is A Limited-Purpose Public Figure Who Cannot Show That The Dennises Acted With Actual Malice........................................ 11 B. Freshwater’s Counterclaim For Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Is Similarly Unsupported And Should Be Dismissed............................ 14 1. Freshwater Has Offered No Evidence That The Dennises Intended To Cause Him Emotional Distress Or That They Should Have Known That Their Conduct Would Cause Him Emotional Distress....... 15 2. Freshwater Has Offered No Evidence That The Dennises’ Conduct Was Outrageous And Extreme................................................................. 15 3. Freshwater Has Offered No Evidence That He Suffered From A Severe Or Debilitating Injury................................................................... 17 C. The Dennises Should Be Granted Summary Judgment On Their Battery Claim.................................................................................................................... 18 1. Freshwater Acted With The Requisite Intent To Commit Battery .......... 19 2. Freshwater’s Application Of The Tesla Coil To Zach’s Arm Constitutes Offensive Contact. ................................................................ 20 3. Freshwater’s Remaining Arguments As To The Dennises’ Battery Claim Are Unavailing.............................................................................. 21 D. Freshwater Provides No Viable Defense For His Own Actions Made In Violation Of The Dennises’ Establishment Clause Rights.................................. 24 1. Freshwater Cannot Pass The Blame For His Personal Deprivation Of The Dennises’ Constitutional Rights.................................................. 24
Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document 75 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) -ii- Page 2. The Dennises Have Standing To Challenge Freshwater’s Violation Of The Establishment Clause................................................................... 26 3. Freshwater Inappropriately Raises The Mootness Doctrine With Respect To The Dennises’ Claims, Other Than Their Claim For Injunctive Relief....................................................................................... 31 4. Freshwater Presents No Facts That Would Make His Actions Constitutional Under the Lemon Test...................................................... 32 E. Freshwater’s Opposition Brief Is Not Supported By Proper Summary- Judgment Evidence And Thus Fails To Demonstrate That Summary Judgment Should Not Be Granted In The Dennises’ Favor ................................ 41 1. All Exhibits Filed By Mr. Hamilton On January 7, 2010 Are Untimely And Therefore Improper.......................................................... 41 2. Their Untimely Filing Notwithstanding, Nearly All Of The Exhibits Suffer From Additional Infirmities That Warrant Striking Them From the Record ............................................................................ 42 III. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 45
Page 1: Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document
Page 5 and 6: Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document
Page 53 and 54:
Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81:
Page 86:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 96:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
show all

Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?