Johnson et al v. Gawker Media, LLC et al
| Charles C Johnson and Got News, LLC |
| Gawker Media, LLC, J. K. Trotter and Greg Howard |
| 4:2015cv01137 |
| July 23, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Charles A. Shaw |
| Assault, Libel, and Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., is GRANTED. [Doc. 14 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' al ternative motions to transfer for improper venue and to dismiss or strike under the California Anti-SLAPP law are DENIED as moot. [Doc. 20 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions for leave to file an amended complaint , to stay the Court's determination on defendants' motion to strike or dismiss pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP law, and plaintiffs' motion to conduct discovery with respect to whether Californias Anti-Slapp law is precluded by federal law, are DENIED as moot. [Docs. 45 , 62 , 65 ] An appropriate order of dismissal will accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 1/15/16. (JWD)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED without prejudice for failure to submit a proposed amended complaint. [Doc. 38 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs� 39; motion for leave to file in excess of page limitation is DENIED. [Doc. 39 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition To: I. Motion to Transfer Venue, II. Motion to Dismiss, III. California Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike/Dismiss And in Support of Plaintiffs' Arguments in the Alternative, Including: Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and Motion to Stay Defendants' California Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Pending Discovery, Motion for Leave to File Response in Excess Of Page Limit" is STRICKEN from the record for filing error, and the Clerk of the Court shall delete it from the record. [Doc. 37 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs a re granted leave to file separate twenty (20) page memoranda in opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 14 ) and Special Motion to Strike the Complaint Pursuant to the California Anti-SLAPP Law (Doc. 20 ). Plaintiffs' op position memoranda shall be filed by October 22, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any statement of facts filed by plaintiffs shall be filed as a separate document and shall conform to the requirements of Local Rule 4.01 (E) by including a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record and, if so, providing an the appropriate citation. Plaintiffs shall specifically indicate which of their opposition memoranda or motions the stat ement of facts is intended to support. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Stay is DENIED without prejudice for failure to file a memorandum in support thereof as required by Local Rule 4.01(A); plaintiffs may refile this m otion with a memorandum in support. [Doc. 40 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' 103 exhibits and the Declaration of Jonathon Burns are STRICKEN from the record for filing error, and the Clerk of the Court shall delete them from the record. [Docs. 41-43] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/19/15. (JWD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
