.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Proviso Probe

Friday, December 30, 2005

DEFAM, Table of Contents, motion for sanctions

Memorandum of law in support of defendant’s motion for sanctions

Emanuel Christopher Welch v. Carl Nyberg
Bill Welch v. Carl Nyberg

Case No. 2005 L 009751, 2005 L 009752
Judge Diane Joan Larsen

Mark S. Mester, Peter N. Moore, Hudson T. Hollister of Latham & Watkins, LLP
(312) 876-7700

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
A. Procedural History
B. Mr. Nyberg Begins Blogging
C. The Welches Sue
D. Mr. Nyberg Begins his Defense
III. Discussion
A. Legal Standards
B. The Plaintiffs Have Violated Rule 137
1. Bill Welch’s Complaint Contains Numerous Untrue Statements
a. Bill Welch was Indicted
b. Mr. Nyberg did not State Bill Welch was an Informant
2. Chris Welch’s Complaint is not Well Grounded in Law
a. The Proviso Probe Postings are Non-Actionable
b. Mr. Nyberg’s Letter to Mr. Roche is Non-Actionable
3. Both Lawsuits were Brought for an Illegitimate Purpose—to Silence and Bankrupt a Political Critic
a. These Lawsuits were Filed to Harass Mr. Nyberg
b. Welch and Roche have a Long History of Similar Activity
C. The Complaints should be Dismissed with Prejudice with Expenses and Attorney Fees Awarded
D. The Court should Hold a Hearing on the Issue of Sanctions and Permit Limited Discovery in Anticipation of Such a Hearing
IV. Conclusion
IV. Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Nyberg requests that this Court grant his Motion and impose sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their attorneys by dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and awarding reasonable attorney fees and expenses, after conducting a hearing on the Motion. My [sic] Nyberg also requests that in pursuit of this Motion, he be permitted to conduct limited discovery.

3 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home