2011 - LC - Eddie L Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company - Doug Andrew

  • 105 - (p9-10) -  
    • MR. TAYLOR: I WOULD. WITH RESPECT TO FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAW SAYS
      THAT THERE HAVE TO BE OVERT STATEMENTS THAT WERE
      MADE BY A DEFENDANT THAT STOPPED THE PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS. WE STILL BELIEVE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO ALLEGE WHAT HE RELIED UPON IN NOT TAKING FURTHER ACTION WITH RESPECT TO HIS CLAIMS. WE THINK THE LAW IS CLEAR. AND IT STARTS WITH THE CASE IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT IN 1986 CALLED KENNEDY VERSUS JOSEPHTAL (PHONETIC) WAS ADOPTED BY THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 1986 D.A. DAVIDSON THAT SAYS THAT IF THERE'S A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND THE ALLEGED ORAL REPRESENTATION, THE STATUTE STARTS AT THAT POINT AND THE PLAINTIFF IS ON INQUIRE NOTICE.  WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE RECORD; THE POLICY CONTRADICTS CRESSY'S ALLEGATIONS OF WHAT HE WAS TOLD AT THE POINT OF SALE.
    • Statute of Limitations, [
  • (p14) - MR. TAYLOR - THIS LAW FIRM HAS SUED FG LIFE THREE TIMES. ONCE IN ALABAMA AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. ONCE IN VIRGINIA, WHICH WAS SETTLED, AND NOW WE'RE BACK HERE. WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO COMPLY WITH THESE DOCUMENT REQUESTS.
  • (p15) - MR. TAYLOR - LET'S SEE IF PLAINTIFF CRESSY CAN FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO FILE A PROPER COMPLAINT AS TO WHY IN HIS MIND HE TOOK NO ACTION. THEY'VE GOT 14,000 DOCUMENTS.
  • (p17) - MR. TAYLOR - WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE OUR CLIENTS MONEY, CAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT WILL IMPACT FUTURE POLICY HOLDERS. WE KNOW THAT AS A POLICY MATTER THAT IF AN INSURANCE COMPANY HAS TO SPEND MONEY DEFENDING ITSELF, WHO ULTIMATELY GETS HURT? THEY HAVE TO RAISE RATES. SO MAYBE THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH THIS --
    • THE COURT: THEY CAN'T REDUCE THE CEO'S SALARY, I GUESS.
    • MR. TAYLOR: HE MAKES $5 -- NO. THE CEO DOES -
    • THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. I DIGRESSED. CONTINUE ON.
  • (p19) - 
  • (p33) - MR. AZADIAN - MY CLIENTS ARE SMALL ENTERPRISE COLLECTIVELY. IT IS HIM, THE AUTHOR, AND HIS SMALL CORPORATION. A CORPORATION UNDER UTAH LAW.
    • IT IS STILL A HEAD SCRATCHER WHY WE'RE IN THIS CASE.
  • (p38) - MR. AZADIAN - AND IT WOULD BE RESULTING IN A GREAT DEAL OF  COSTS CERTAINLY MY CLIENTS DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF  MONEY TO LITIGATE THIS. THEY JUST DON'T. THEY -- A GOOGLE SEARCH. A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH WOULD REVEAL THAT. YOU KNOW, THEY SELL BOOKS. THEY GO TO BOOK FAIRS. YOU KNOW THEY GO TO CONFERENCES. WHAT THAT AUTHOR ENDED UP SAYING YOU KNOW AND WHAT IS ATTRIBUTED TO THIS AUTHOR IS PROTECTIVE SPEECH AND WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH JUDGE KRONSTADT ON THAT POINT AND WE WILL TAKE OUR APPEAL TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
  • (p41) - 
  • (P42) - 
  • (P44) - MY CLIENTS SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY THEY NEED THE PROTECTIONS OF THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE.
  • EQUITY HARVESTING MISSED FORTUNE
  • (p54) - 
  • (p56) - 
  • ----------------------------
  • 78-2 - Declaration of James S. Azadian - attorney with Enterprise Counsel Group ALC, in Irvine, California. My firm is counsel to Paramount Financial Services, Inc. and Douglas Andrew...
    • (p2) - On behalf of defendants Paramount Financial Services, Inc. and Mr. Andrew, I appeared at the Court’s March 12, 2012 hearing on the then-pending dispositive motions directed at Plaintiff’s original complaint. At that hearing, the Court granted the various motions to dismiss the original complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), and the Court deferred ruling on the anti-SLAPP special motion to strike the original complaint. Subsequently, I ordered a transcript of the hearing from the court reporter. A true and correct copy of the March 12, 2012 hearing transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
    • Anti-Slapp
    • (23) - Pyramid Scheme
    • (p26) - THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. I THINK I'VE IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE. IF TONY ROBBINS WERE CONDUCTING A SEMINAR ON MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKING AND WERE URGING PEOPLE TO GO PREY ON ELDERLY IN SOME FASHION OR ANOTHER OR GIVING THEM THE TOOLS TO DO IT AND SAID, WHEN YOU DO IT, I GET A 10 PERCENT TAKE ON THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
  • 78-1 - (p8-9 of 11) -  The fact remains that Mr. Andrew’s authorship of books and seminar talks across the country cannot serve as a basis for liability.1 The FAC’s allegations do not change this fact, as they are purely conclusory and calculated to disquiet the earlier allegations to avoid the reach of the anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1) (West 2012).2  Mr. Andrew and Paramount have made the necessary threshold showing under the anti-SLAPP statute because Mr. Andrew’s book and speaking seminars are classic free speech activities protected by the First Amendment and Article I of the California Constitution.
    • California’s anti-SLAPP statute is designed to protect book authors and other individual public participants, such as Mr. Andrew, from having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves against conclusory and speculative accusations, only to later confirm, after much legal expense and discovery, that the accusations against
      them are built on nothing more than speculation that they must have been directly or “integrally” involved in an alleged fraudulent scheme because other defendants or third
      parties read their books, attended their speaking seminars, and followed their writings.
  • If such a case as this advances past an anti-SLAPP challenge, the very purpose for the anti-SLAPP statute would be undermined. It is worth repeating the State Legislature’s finding, as recently underscored by the Ninth Circuit, that “it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.” Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. County of San Diego (“Manufactured Home”), 655 F.3d 1171, ___, 2011 WL 3771277 *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2011). 
    • 1 Incidentally, Plaintiff has not attempted to provide any evidence in support of his conclusory allegations that Defendants were integrally (or even otherwise) involved in a life insurance scheme. In fact, Plaintiff’s pending improper request for judicial notice provides website snapshots demonstrating that Defendants’ business is confined to the authorship, publication, and promotion of books and other literature. (Dkt. No. 59.)
  • 78-1 - (p10) - Plaintiff now adds the general allegation that “Mr. Andrew has repeatedly and continuously used the internet to misrepresent equity indexed universal life insurance policies as investments.” (FAC ¶ 81.)