|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 10:24 AM
Kiraly files motion to dismiss defamation lawsuit
Motion says "frivolous" suit brought by husband of Menlo Park mayor
|
|
by Sandy Brundage
Almanac Staff
Where's Judge Judy when you need her? A Menlo Park fire board member sued for defamation and conspiracy shot back on Monday by asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Attorneys Harmeet Dhillon and Krista Shoquist, representing Virginia Chang Kiraly, described the suit as "a frivolous lawsuit that, on its face, both violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is fatally defective as a pleading."
John Woodell, husband of Menlo Park Mayor Kirsten Keith, sued Ms. Chang Kiraly and city resident Chuck Bernstein in October, alleging that the pair told the media, police and unnamed other people that he'd vandalized campaign signs during the 2011 fire board election, among other allegations.
All parties agree that someone uprooted Ms. Chang Kiraly's campaign sign from Mr. Bernstein's yard, tossing it into the bushes, and that Mr. Woodell's cellphone was found next to it.
The plaintiff denied vandalizing the sign.
A detailed, 29-page memorandum filed with the request to dismiss the lawsuit cites media coverage, emails and other documentation, along with sworn statements from both defendants, to support its contention that in fact neither said Mr. Woodell had removed any signs.
On the other hand, supporting evidence is lacking in the complaint filed by Mr. Woodell, according to the defendant's attorneys, making it "fatally defective."
In an earlier interview Ms. Dhillon told the Almanac that "there are certain types of lawsuits you can file that are bare bones like this, and defamation is not one of them." Defamation requires "great specificity -- who said what to whom and where and when."
The motion to dismiss also argues that Mr. Woodell's public political participation in the fire board campaign and standing as an elected member of the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee makes him a public figure, setting the bar for proving defamation even higher -- the plaintiff must prove actual malice.
Seth Rosenberg of Minami Tamaki LLP, representing Mr. Woodell, said on Tuesday morning that he hadn't had time to review the filing, so was unable to comment.
The motion to dismiss asks the court to have Mr. Woodell pay the defendant's attorney fees. Ms. Dhillon told the Almanac that "depending on the volume of the opposition and the necessary reply brief, those fees could exceed $50,000."
A hearing on the motion is set for Jan. 8 in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Get Unstuck Please!, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm A pox on both (all) their houses.
Those interested in serving the community's needs should be spending their time and money on making lives better through improved and more efficienct services.
This is just the kind of fighting and bickering, now combined with legal costs, that make people not want to step up for public office in the first place.
Both sides need to get out out of this sideshow of animosity they seem to be stuck in. Both continue to feed time and energy into the wrong things. Shame!
|
|
Posted by A Spectator, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Nov 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm This is not a 2 sided case of "fighting and bickering" but, instead a unilateral attack by one person against another. I do not believe that Ms. Kiraly is a willing participant in this pointless law suit while Mr. Woodell is using the tax payer's legal system to garner attention and, he hopes, sympathy for a situation that was avoidable day one. Had Mr. Woodell simply spoken to the newspapers when first called, he could have explained that his phone had been lost or stolen from his home or car and he was grateful that it was found. It's only human nature that when there is a gap in information, it is tempting to fill that empty space with theories, guesswork or humorous possibilities. Let's hope the court dismisses the case, giving Mr. Woodell the opportunity to return to his every day life of gainful employment, family and political involvement.
|
|
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm Spectator--in one post you managed to press several of my personal buttons; good job. First, what YOU believe should be of now relevance to Mr. Woodell or Ms Kiraly unless you get called to serve on the jury. Second, "using the tax payers legal system"--comon, man!, I'm sure Mr. Woodell pays taxes, so it is HIS legal system to use--thats why it is there. Finally, it is an smart person who refuses to speak to newspapers when called, again, not required in our society, and the chances for being misquoted or worse just aren't worth it. Personally, I could give a hoot who is right or wrong in this situation, but I certainly would defend and support both parties right to use THEIR legal system to resolve it.
|
|
|
To comment on this topic, please login here if you are a registered member. If not, click here. | |
|
Send this story
Print this story
