Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant

J
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER        Date Filed 07/01/10      Entry Number 120         Page 1 of 7



                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                                   FLORENCE DIVISION

HOWARD K. STERN, as Executor of the      )         Civil Action No.: 4:08-cv-2753-TLW-TER
Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a/k/a    )
Vickie Lynn Smith, a/k/a Vickie Lynn     )
Hogan, a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith,          )
                                         )
                     Plaintiffs,         )
                                         )                         ORDER
             -vs-                        )
                                         )
                                         )
STANCIL SHELLEY, a/k/a Ford Shelley, )
G. BEN THOMPSON, and John or Jane        )
Does 1-12, whose true names are unknown, )
                                         )
                     Defendants.         )
___________________________________ )

I.       INTRODUCTION

         This action arises out of the removal of property belonging to the Estate of Vickie Lynn

Marshall a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith (hereinafter,

the Estate) from a home located in the Bahamas known as Horizons (hereinafter, Horizons), about

which Ms. Smith and Defendants were involved in a contentious dispute regarding ownership at the

time of Ms. Smith’s death. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for conversion, wrongful taking of

estate property in violation of California Probate Code § 850, et seq., statutory and common law

commercial appropriation of right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code § 3344.1, unjust

enrichment/restitution, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional Code

§ 17200, et seq., violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) and civil

conspiracy.

         Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Document # 78) his
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER          Date Filed 07/01/10      Entry Number 120          Page 2 of 7



Complaint. Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d), and

20(a)(2) to amend his Complaint to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither), Melanie

Thompson (Melanie), Gina Thompson Shelley (Gina) (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), and

Susan M. Brown (Brown) and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the Law Firm) as party

defendants and to amend and supplement his Complaint with facts learned during the discovery

process. All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A) & (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC.

II.    RELEVANT FACTS

       A.      Doe Defendants

       In addition to the Defendants named in the Complaint, Plaintiff also names “Doe

Defendants”– unknown persons who “acted in concert with [Defendant Stancil “Ford” Shelley,

(hereinafter, Ford)] concerning property belonging to the Estate.” Complaint ¶ 5. Plaintiff provides

in the original Complaint that he will seek to name these defendants once their identities are

ascertained through discovery. Plaintiff represents in his Motion that Gaither Bengene Thompson,

II (Gaither) and Melanie Thompson (Melanie) have conceded through counsel that they are two of

the Doe Defendants. Further, Gaither and Gina testified that they were personally involved in the

removal of Estate property from Horizons. Gaither Dep. 86-94; Gina Dep. 81-83. Gaither also

testified that Melanie entered Horizons on the day after Ms. Smith’s death and later took an Estate

computer from Ford’s home to her own home for a few days. Gaither Dep. 88, 106.

       B.      Susan Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C.

       Brown entered into an agreement with G. Ben Thompson (hereinafter, Thompson) in October

2006 wherein she agreed to represent him and several entities he owned with regards to his dispute


                                                -2-
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER            Date Filed 07/01/10     Entry Number 120         Page 3 of 7



with Smith regarding Horizons. Brown Aff. ¶ 2. At the same time, Brown verbally agreed to

represent other members of Thompson’s family on this matter. Id. Following the removal of Estate

property from Horizons, Ford gave to Brown some of the Estate property, including copies of Estate

computer hard drives. Brown later gave the hard drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm, which had

engaged a computer forensics expert to conduct reviews of the hard drives. Brown Dep. 22-25, 167-

69. Brown also copied Estate property and maintained these copies on her and her firm’s computer.

Id. at 30-37.

       C.        Additional Facts

       As a result of discovery, Plaintiff seeks to add additional factual allegations that he argues

provide him with additional grounds for relief. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to allege that Ford

distributed Estate property to more third-parties than originally learned, including Geraldo Rivera

with Fox News, the O’Quinn Law Firm, former television journalist Rita Cosby, and the California

Department of Justice. Ford Dep. I at 140-141, 91-93; Ford Dep. II at 29; Brown Dep. at 163-64,

199-201.

       Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to allege post-Complaint facts which he asserts warrant

supplementing the Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to allege that Brown maintained copies

of Estate property on her own computer without disclosing the fact to Plaintiff or the Court. Brown

Dep. at 30-37.

III.   DISCUSSION

       As stated above, Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d),

and 20(a)(2) to amend his Complaint to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither), Melanie

Thompson (Melanie), Gina Thompson Shelley (Gina) (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), and


                                                -3-
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER            Date Filed 07/01/10       Entry Number 120         Page 4 of 7



Susan M. Brown (Brown) and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the Law Firm) as party

defendants and to amend and supplement his Complaint with facts learned during the discovery

process. Counsel for Ford has consented to the filing of the proposed Amended Complaint. See

Email from MacDonald to Lantta dated October 28, 2009. Thompson has not filed a Response in

opposition the motion. The only opposition comes from proposed new Defendants Brown and the

Law Firm.1 Brown argues that allowing the amendments would be prejudicial to her and would be

futile as to the claims against her. Brown does not appear to oppose the addition of Gaither, Melanie

and Gina as Defendants in this action or to the addition of factual allegations regarding Ford’s

distribution of Estate property to other third-parties.

       Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given when justice so

requires.” “The law is well-settled ‘that leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the

amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the

moving party, or the amendment would be futile.’” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242

(4th Cir.1999)(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) and quoting

Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503,509-10 (4th Cir.1986)).

       Addition of Gaither, Melanie, and Gina is appropriate under Rule 15(a) and Rule 20(a)(2)

and is unopposed. Further, addition of the factual allegations regarding Ford’s distribution of Estate

property is appropriate under Rule 15(a) and is unopposed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted

as to these proposed amendments.

       The only proposed amendments at issue are the addition of Brown as a Defendant and the



       1
       For ease of reference, any further use of “Brown” within this Order will refer to both
Susan Brown and the Law Firm, unless otherwise noted.

                                                  -4-
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER             Date Filed 07/01/10       Entry Number 120           Page 5 of 7



factual allegations against her. Brown first argues that adding her to the case would be prejudicial.

She argues that numerous depositions have already been taken and the expert disclosure and

discovery deadlines have passed. She argues that she would be prejudiced due to the fact that she

has not had the opportunity to participate in discovery as a party. However, in his Response,

Plaintiff asserts that he is not opposed to amending the deadlines in this case to allow Brown to

conduct discovery. Further, Plaintiff argues that Brown, as counsel for Thompson, fully participated

in the discovery that has occurred in this case thus far. Because Plaintiff is not seeking to add any

new legal theories, any additional discovery that is needed should be fairly limited. All of the

proposed new Defendants, including Brown, have already been deposed regarding their involvement

in the facts underlying this case. The need for additional discovery and an amended scheduling order

is not sufficiently prejudicial to outweigh the mandate that leave to amend a complaint be “freely

given.” See N.C. ex rel. Long v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 711 F.Supp. 257, 259-60

(E.D.N.C.1989) (noting that the fact that parties will have to conduct additional discovery “does not

suffice as a showing of prejudice”). Thus, the undersigned finds that allowing the amendment would

not be prejudicial.

        Brown also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the addition of any claims

against her would be futile. For a motion to amend to be denied for futility, the amendment must

be “clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d at 510-511; see also

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, AG, 304 F.Supp.2d 812, 819 (E.D.Va.2004) (“Courts

generally favor the ‘resolution of cases on their merits’ ... [t]hus the substantive merits of a proposed

claim [or defense] are typically best left for later resolution, e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary

judgment, ..., or for resolution at trial.”) (quoting Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613


                                                  -5-
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER             Date Filed 07/01/10       Entry Number 120           Page 6 of 7



(4th Cir.1980)); see also Robinson v. GEO Licensing Co., L.L.C., 173 F.Supp.2d 419, 423

(D.Md.2001).

        Brown argues that, as former counsel in this case, she is immune from the claims Plaintiff

seeks to allege. Generally, an attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from the

performance of his or her professional activities as an attorney on behalf of and with the knowledge

of his or her client. See Hunt v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, 522 F. Supp.2d 749, 758 (D.S.C.

2007). However, both Thompson and Ford testify that they did not authorize her to distribute Estate

property to the O’Quinn Law Firm. Shelley Dep. I at 164; Thompson Dep. at 152. Thus, a question

of fact exists as to whether Brown is immune from the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against her.



        Brown also addresses each cause of action and argues that Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim

against her under any of his theories of recovery. Brown argues that Plaintiff incorrectly assumes

that California law will apply in this action. Brown argues generally that South Carolina law applies

under the doctrine of lex loci delicti because the alleged injuries occurred in South Carolina.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the lex loci delicti doctrine, that is, the law of the state in which the

injury occurred, is applicable to these claims. Instead, Plaintiff argues that for the statutory claims

asserted by Plaintiff for misappropriation of publicity rights, unfair competition, and wrongful

taking of Estate property, the injury occurred in Plaintiff’s domicile, which Plaintiff alleges is

California. Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12, 28. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s common law claims

are properly pleaded under either California law or South Carolina law. As for the California

statutory claims, while neither party thoroughly addresses the choice of law issue, for a motion to

amend to be denied for futility, the proposed amendment must be “clearly insufficient or frivolous


                                                  -6-
4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER             Date Filed 07/01/10       Entry Number 120          Page 7 of 7



on its face.” Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d at 510-511. Based upon the record presented, the

undersigned cannot conclude the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are clearly insufficient or

frivolous.2 Accordingly, allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint would not be futile.

IV.    CONCLUSION

       In sum, Brown has failed to show that allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to add her

would be prejudicial or futile. Further, none of the parties object to allowing Plaintiff to add the Doe

Defendants or the new factual allegations. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Document

# 78) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint, which is

attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff must serve the Amended Complaint within 15

days of the date of this Order. Defendants must respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                        s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
                                                        Thomas E. Rogers, III
                                                        United States Magistrate Judge
July 1, 2010
Florence, South Carolina




       2
        It is further noted that Plaintiff does not seek to amend his Complaint to add claims under
California law. Those claims are already pending.

                                                  -7-

Recomendados

Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does von
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesMotion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesJRachelle
3.9K views5 Folien
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants von
 Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add DefendantsJRachelle
28.9K views14 Folien
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss von
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissBrown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissJRachelle
4.2K views8 Folien
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint von
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintBrown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintJRachelle
15.3K views12 Folien
Motion To Set Hearing Scott Joye von
Motion To Set Hearing   Scott JoyeMotion To Set Hearing   Scott Joye
Motion To Set Hearing Scott JoyeJRachelle
4.1K views1 Folie
Motion To Dismiss Raanan Katz Copyright Lawsuit von
Motion To Dismiss Raanan Katz Copyright LawsuitMotion To Dismiss Raanan Katz Copyright Lawsuit
Motion To Dismiss Raanan Katz Copyright Lawsuitrkcenters
2.6K views5 Folien

Más contenido relacionado

Was ist angesagt?

Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment von
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgmentAffidavit in support of motion for summary judgment
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgmentCocoselul Inaripat
32.4K views62 Folien
Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions von
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsMemo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsJRachelle
1.3K views19 Folien
Brayshaw order von
Brayshaw orderBrayshaw order
Brayshaw orderTerry81
57 views11 Folien
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights) von
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Rich Bergeron
2.2K views7 Folien
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal Lawsuit von
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitBrayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal Lawsuit
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitTerry81
14 views23 Folien
Motion For Contempt And Sanctions von
Motion For Contempt And SanctionsMotion For Contempt And Sanctions
Motion For Contempt And SanctionsJRachelle
1.4K views5 Folien

Was ist angesagt?(19)

Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment von Cocoselul Inaripat
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgmentAffidavit in support of motion for summary judgment
Affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment
Cocoselul Inaripat32.4K views
Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions von JRachelle
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsMemo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
JRachelle1.3K views
Brayshaw order von Terry81
Brayshaw orderBrayshaw order
Brayshaw order
Terry8157 views
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights) von Rich Bergeron
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Rich Bergeron2.2K views
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal Lawsuit von Terry81
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal LawsuitBrayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal Lawsuit
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, Illegal David Record Searches Federal Lawsuit
Terry8114 views
Motion For Contempt And Sanctions von JRachelle
Motion For Contempt And SanctionsMotion For Contempt And Sanctions
Motion For Contempt And Sanctions
JRachelle1.4K views
Darren Chaker publish_police_address von Darren Chaker
Darren Chaker publish_police_addressDarren Chaker publish_police_address
Darren Chaker publish_police_address
Darren Chaker176 views
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown von JRachelle
GEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownGEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
JRachelle3.7K views
205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case von homeworkping7
205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case
205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case
homeworkping7296 views
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds von Rich Bergeron
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial GroundsMotion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
Rich Bergeron3.2K views
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions von Rich Bergeron
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsReply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Rich Bergeron1.4K views
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial) von Rich Bergeron
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)
Rich Bergeron2.8K views
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights von Rich Bergeron
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsDefendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
Rich Bergeron1.5K views
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's... von Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...
Cocoselul Inaripat943 views
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De... von Rich Bergeron
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...
Rich Bergeron726.3K views
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ... von Rich Bergeron
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...
Rich Bergeron1.4K views
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH) von VogelDenise
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
MOTION TO STRIKE - Motion To Stay (PKH)
VogelDenise13.4K views
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta... von Rich Bergeron
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...
Rich Bergeron852.4K views
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ... von Rich Bergeron
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...
Rich Bergeron2.1K views

Similar a Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant

Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm von
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmReply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmJRachelle
2.5K views17 Folien
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt von
SC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptSC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptJRachelle
918 views9 Folien
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb von
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbReply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbJRachelle
3.5K views11 Folien
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss von
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissJRachelle
1.8K views9 Folien
HKS status report on motion for contempt von
 HKS status report on motion for contempt HKS status report on motion for contempt
HKS status report on motion for contemptJRachelle
383 views5 Folien
Doc. 131 von
Doc. 131Doc. 131
Doc. 131Cocoselul Inaripat
503 views37 Folien

Similar a Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant(20)

Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm von JRachelle
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmReply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
JRachelle2.5K views
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt von JRachelle
SC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptSC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
JRachelle918 views
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb von JRachelle
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbReply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
JRachelle3.5K views
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss von JRachelle
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
JRachelle1.8K views
HKS status report on motion for contempt von JRachelle
 HKS status report on motion for contempt HKS status report on motion for contempt
HKS status report on motion for contempt
JRachelle383 views
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions von JRachelle
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for SanctionsScott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
JRachelle699 views
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt Motion von JRachelle
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt MotionBrown Memo In Opposition To Contempt Motion
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt Motion
JRachelle3K views
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1) von Daniel Alouidor
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Daniel Alouidor1.3K views
Alissa Katz- Writing Sample von Alissa Katz
Alissa Katz- Writing Sample Alissa Katz- Writing Sample
Alissa Katz- Writing Sample
Alissa Katz301 views
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal von LegalDocs
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
LegalDocs1.2K views
Family Detention: Full Speed Ahead. von amjolaw
Family Detention: Full Speed Ahead. Family Detention: Full Speed Ahead.
Family Detention: Full Speed Ahead.
amjolaw516 views
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's... von Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...
Cocoselul Inaripat371 views
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's... von Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...
Cocoselul Inaripat436 views
Document 112 (Main) von Byliner1
Document 112 (Main)Document 112 (Main)
Document 112 (Main)
Byliner1976 views
Edwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awards von PublicLeaks
Edwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awardsEdwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awards
Edwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awards
PublicLeaks104 views
A-4 Appendix A Alternate Case problems—Chapter 2App.docx von ransayo
A-4          Appendix A  Alternate Case problems—Chapter 2App.docxA-4          Appendix A  Alternate Case problems—Chapter 2App.docx
A-4 Appendix A Alternate Case problems—Chapter 2App.docx
ransayo4 views

Más de JRachelle

Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference von
Marshall v Living Trust Fund  status conferenceMarshall v Living Trust Fund  status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conferenceJRachelle
574 views2 Folien
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS) von
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)JRachelle
557 views19 Folien
Stern motion for stay of mandate von
Stern   motion for stay of mandateStern   motion for stay of mandate
Stern motion for stay of mandateJRachelle
1.2K views8 Folien
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTED von
Stern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTEDStern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTEDJRachelle
410 views1 Folie
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted von
Stern  - Motion for certiorari grantedStern  - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern - Motion for certiorari grantedJRachelle
397 views1 Folie
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition von
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionSCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionJRachelle
484 views1 Folie

Más de JRachelle(20)

Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference von JRachelle
Marshall v Living Trust Fund  status conferenceMarshall v Living Trust Fund  status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
JRachelle574 views
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS) von JRachelle
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
JRachelle557 views
Stern motion for stay of mandate von JRachelle
Stern   motion for stay of mandateStern   motion for stay of mandate
Stern motion for stay of mandate
JRachelle1.2K views
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTED von JRachelle
Stern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTEDStern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
JRachelle410 views
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted von JRachelle
Stern  - Motion for certiorari grantedStern  - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
JRachelle397 views
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition von JRachelle
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionSCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
JRachelle484 views
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS von JRachelle
Bonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISSBonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
JRachelle640 views
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss von JRachelle
Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
JRachelle3.7K views
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss von JRachelle
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
JRachelle360 views
Brown - Motion to Dismiss von JRachelle
Brown - Motion to DismissBrown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
JRachelle284 views
GBT ANSWER von JRachelle
GBT ANSWERGBT ANSWER
GBT ANSWER
JRachelle403 views
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint von JRachelle
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintShelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
JRachelle4.1K views
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled von JRachelle
Bonnie   order for hearing rescheduledBonnie   order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
JRachelle509 views
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010 von JRachelle
S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
JRachelle271 views
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case von JRachelle
Bonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying caseBonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
JRachelle379 views
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10 von JRachelle
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
JRachelle726 views
Marshall V Marshall 3 19 10 von JRachelle
Marshall V  Marshall 3 19 10Marshall V  Marshall 3 19 10
Marshall V Marshall 3 19 10
JRachelle662 views
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10 von JRachelle
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
JRachelle381 views
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09 von JRachelle
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
JRachelle1.4K views
Gaither Depo - HD to McCabe von JRachelle
Gaither  Depo  - HD to McCabeGaither  Depo  - HD to McCabe
Gaither Depo - HD to McCabe
JRachelle219 views

Último

2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf von
2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf
2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdfBloomerang
26 views36 Folien
The Talent Management Navigator Performance Management von
The Talent Management Navigator Performance ManagementThe Talent Management Navigator Performance Management
The Talent Management Navigator Performance ManagementSeta Wicaksana
40 views36 Folien
DEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptx von
DEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptxDEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptx
DEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptxbradgallagher6
31 views24 Folien
Netflix Inc. von
Netflix Inc.Netflix Inc.
Netflix Inc.125071027
14 views11 Folien
Hoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptx von
Hoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptxHoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptx
Hoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptxbradgallagher6
14 views6 Folien
Cohen_Summit 2023-FINAL.pptx von
Cohen_Summit 2023-FINAL.pptxCohen_Summit 2023-FINAL.pptx
Cohen_Summit 2023-FINAL.pptxbradgallagher6
52 views45 Folien

Último(20)

2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf von Bloomerang
2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf
2023 Tracking Volunteers in Bloomerang.pdf
Bloomerang26 views
The Talent Management Navigator Performance Management von Seta Wicaksana
The Talent Management Navigator Performance ManagementThe Talent Management Navigator Performance Management
The Talent Management Navigator Performance Management
Seta Wicaksana40 views
DEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptx von bradgallagher6
DEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptxDEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptx
DEUTSER-03188 Salt Lake Nov 30 Talk with speaker notes[13].pptx
bradgallagher631 views
Hoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptx von bradgallagher6
Hoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptxHoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptx
Hoole_Summit 2023 - Opening Remarks.pptx
bradgallagher614 views
SplitMetrics at APS Berlin von VikaVlasova1
SplitMetrics at APS BerlinSplitMetrics at APS Berlin
SplitMetrics at APS Berlin
VikaVlasova135 views
3Q23_EN.pdf von irhcs
3Q23_EN.pdf3Q23_EN.pdf
3Q23_EN.pdf
irhcs18 views
On the Concept of Discovery Power of Enterprise Modeling Languages and its Re... von Ilia Bider
On the Concept of Discovery Power of Enterprise Modeling Languages and its Re...On the Concept of Discovery Power of Enterprise Modeling Languages and its Re...
On the Concept of Discovery Power of Enterprise Modeling Languages and its Re...
Ilia Bider16 views
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry von Peter Horsten
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee IndustryNavigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry
Peter Horsten82 views
Orme_231129 - Around the world in 5 questions.pdf von bradgallagher6
Orme_231129 - Around the world in 5 questions.pdfOrme_231129 - Around the world in 5 questions.pdf
Orme_231129 - Around the world in 5 questions.pdf
bradgallagher619 views
Navigating the Complexity of Derivatives Valuation 📈 von ValAdvisor
Navigating the Complexity of Derivatives Valuation 📈Navigating the Complexity of Derivatives Valuation 📈
Navigating the Complexity of Derivatives Valuation 📈
ValAdvisor18 views

Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant

  • 1. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION HOWARD K. STERN, as Executor of the ) Civil Action No.: 4:08-cv-2753-TLW-TER Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a/k/a ) Vickie Lynn Smith, a/k/a Vickie Lynn ) Hogan, a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ORDER -vs- ) ) ) STANCIL SHELLEY, a/k/a Ford Shelley, ) G. BEN THOMPSON, and John or Jane ) Does 1-12, whose true names are unknown, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) I. INTRODUCTION This action arises out of the removal of property belonging to the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith (hereinafter, the Estate) from a home located in the Bahamas known as Horizons (hereinafter, Horizons), about which Ms. Smith and Defendants were involved in a contentious dispute regarding ownership at the time of Ms. Smith’s death. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for conversion, wrongful taking of estate property in violation of California Probate Code § 850, et seq., statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code § 3344.1, unjust enrichment/restitution, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional Code § 17200, et seq., violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) and civil conspiracy. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Document # 78) his
  • 2. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 2 of 7 Complaint. Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d), and 20(a)(2) to amend his Complaint to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither), Melanie Thompson (Melanie), Gina Thompson Shelley (Gina) (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), and Susan M. Brown (Brown) and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the Law Firm) as party defendants and to amend and supplement his Complaint with facts learned during the discovery process. All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC. II. RELEVANT FACTS A. Doe Defendants In addition to the Defendants named in the Complaint, Plaintiff also names “Doe Defendants”– unknown persons who “acted in concert with [Defendant Stancil “Ford” Shelley, (hereinafter, Ford)] concerning property belonging to the Estate.” Complaint ¶ 5. Plaintiff provides in the original Complaint that he will seek to name these defendants once their identities are ascertained through discovery. Plaintiff represents in his Motion that Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither) and Melanie Thompson (Melanie) have conceded through counsel that they are two of the Doe Defendants. Further, Gaither and Gina testified that they were personally involved in the removal of Estate property from Horizons. Gaither Dep. 86-94; Gina Dep. 81-83. Gaither also testified that Melanie entered Horizons on the day after Ms. Smith’s death and later took an Estate computer from Ford’s home to her own home for a few days. Gaither Dep. 88, 106. B. Susan Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. Brown entered into an agreement with G. Ben Thompson (hereinafter, Thompson) in October 2006 wherein she agreed to represent him and several entities he owned with regards to his dispute -2-
  • 3. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 3 of 7 with Smith regarding Horizons. Brown Aff. ¶ 2. At the same time, Brown verbally agreed to represent other members of Thompson’s family on this matter. Id. Following the removal of Estate property from Horizons, Ford gave to Brown some of the Estate property, including copies of Estate computer hard drives. Brown later gave the hard drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm, which had engaged a computer forensics expert to conduct reviews of the hard drives. Brown Dep. 22-25, 167- 69. Brown also copied Estate property and maintained these copies on her and her firm’s computer. Id. at 30-37. C. Additional Facts As a result of discovery, Plaintiff seeks to add additional factual allegations that he argues provide him with additional grounds for relief. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to allege that Ford distributed Estate property to more third-parties than originally learned, including Geraldo Rivera with Fox News, the O’Quinn Law Firm, former television journalist Rita Cosby, and the California Department of Justice. Ford Dep. I at 140-141, 91-93; Ford Dep. II at 29; Brown Dep. at 163-64, 199-201. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to allege post-Complaint facts which he asserts warrant supplementing the Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to allege that Brown maintained copies of Estate property on her own computer without disclosing the fact to Plaintiff or the Court. Brown Dep. at 30-37. III. DISCUSSION As stated above, Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d), and 20(a)(2) to amend his Complaint to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II (Gaither), Melanie Thompson (Melanie), Gina Thompson Shelley (Gina) (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), and -3-
  • 4. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 4 of 7 Susan M. Brown (Brown) and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the Law Firm) as party defendants and to amend and supplement his Complaint with facts learned during the discovery process. Counsel for Ford has consented to the filing of the proposed Amended Complaint. See Email from MacDonald to Lantta dated October 28, 2009. Thompson has not filed a Response in opposition the motion. The only opposition comes from proposed new Defendants Brown and the Law Firm.1 Brown argues that allowing the amendments would be prejudicial to her and would be futile as to the claims against her. Brown does not appear to oppose the addition of Gaither, Melanie and Gina as Defendants in this action or to the addition of factual allegations regarding Ford’s distribution of Estate property to other third-parties. Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given when justice so requires.” “The law is well-settled ‘that leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.’” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir.1999)(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) and quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503,509-10 (4th Cir.1986)). Addition of Gaither, Melanie, and Gina is appropriate under Rule 15(a) and Rule 20(a)(2) and is unopposed. Further, addition of the factual allegations regarding Ford’s distribution of Estate property is appropriate under Rule 15(a) and is unopposed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to these proposed amendments. The only proposed amendments at issue are the addition of Brown as a Defendant and the 1 For ease of reference, any further use of “Brown” within this Order will refer to both Susan Brown and the Law Firm, unless otherwise noted. -4-
  • 5. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 5 of 7 factual allegations against her. Brown first argues that adding her to the case would be prejudicial. She argues that numerous depositions have already been taken and the expert disclosure and discovery deadlines have passed. She argues that she would be prejudiced due to the fact that she has not had the opportunity to participate in discovery as a party. However, in his Response, Plaintiff asserts that he is not opposed to amending the deadlines in this case to allow Brown to conduct discovery. Further, Plaintiff argues that Brown, as counsel for Thompson, fully participated in the discovery that has occurred in this case thus far. Because Plaintiff is not seeking to add any new legal theories, any additional discovery that is needed should be fairly limited. All of the proposed new Defendants, including Brown, have already been deposed regarding their involvement in the facts underlying this case. The need for additional discovery and an amended scheduling order is not sufficiently prejudicial to outweigh the mandate that leave to amend a complaint be “freely given.” See N.C. ex rel. Long v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 711 F.Supp. 257, 259-60 (E.D.N.C.1989) (noting that the fact that parties will have to conduct additional discovery “does not suffice as a showing of prejudice”). Thus, the undersigned finds that allowing the amendment would not be prejudicial. Brown also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the addition of any claims against her would be futile. For a motion to amend to be denied for futility, the amendment must be “clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d at 510-511; see also Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, AG, 304 F.Supp.2d 812, 819 (E.D.Va.2004) (“Courts generally favor the ‘resolution of cases on their merits’ ... [t]hus the substantive merits of a proposed claim [or defense] are typically best left for later resolution, e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, ..., or for resolution at trial.”) (quoting Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 -5-
  • 6. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 6 of 7 (4th Cir.1980)); see also Robinson v. GEO Licensing Co., L.L.C., 173 F.Supp.2d 419, 423 (D.Md.2001). Brown argues that, as former counsel in this case, she is immune from the claims Plaintiff seeks to allege. Generally, an attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from the performance of his or her professional activities as an attorney on behalf of and with the knowledge of his or her client. See Hunt v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, 522 F. Supp.2d 749, 758 (D.S.C. 2007). However, both Thompson and Ford testify that they did not authorize her to distribute Estate property to the O’Quinn Law Firm. Shelley Dep. I at 164; Thompson Dep. at 152. Thus, a question of fact exists as to whether Brown is immune from the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against her. Brown also addresses each cause of action and argues that Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim against her under any of his theories of recovery. Brown argues that Plaintiff incorrectly assumes that California law will apply in this action. Brown argues generally that South Carolina law applies under the doctrine of lex loci delicti because the alleged injuries occurred in South Carolina. Plaintiff does not dispute that the lex loci delicti doctrine, that is, the law of the state in which the injury occurred, is applicable to these claims. Instead, Plaintiff argues that for the statutory claims asserted by Plaintiff for misappropriation of publicity rights, unfair competition, and wrongful taking of Estate property, the injury occurred in Plaintiff’s domicile, which Plaintiff alleges is California. Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12, 28. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s common law claims are properly pleaded under either California law or South Carolina law. As for the California statutory claims, while neither party thoroughly addresses the choice of law issue, for a motion to amend to be denied for futility, the proposed amendment must be “clearly insufficient or frivolous -6-
  • 7. 4:08-cv-02753-TLW -TER Date Filed 07/01/10 Entry Number 120 Page 7 of 7 on its face.” Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d at 510-511. Based upon the record presented, the undersigned cannot conclude the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are clearly insufficient or frivolous.2 Accordingly, allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint would not be futile. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, Brown has failed to show that allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to add her would be prejudicial or futile. Further, none of the parties object to allowing Plaintiff to add the Doe Defendants or the new factual allegations. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Document # 78) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint, which is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff must serve the Amended Complaint within 15 days of the date of this Order. Defendants must respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas E. Rogers, III Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge July 1, 2010 Florence, South Carolina 2 It is further noted that Plaintiff does not seek to amend his Complaint to add claims under California law. Those claims are already pending. -7-