Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:2641

1 BLAKELY LAW GROUP

BRENT H. BLAKELY (CA Bar No. 157292)
1334 Parkview Avenue, Suite 280
3 Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Telephone: (310) 546-7400
4
Facsimile: (310) 546-7401
5 Email:
BBlakely@BlakelyLawGroup.com
2

6

Attorneys for Defendants
7 ESSENTIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC and
8 MICHAEL COHEN
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

STEPHANIE CLIFFORD a.k.a.
STORMY DANIELS a.k.a. PEGGY
PETERSON, an individual,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP a.k.a. DAVID
DENNISON, an individual,
ESSENTIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
MICHAEL COHEN, an individual, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-CV-02217-SJO-FFM
DEFENDANTS ESSENTIAL
CONSULTANTS LLC AND
MICHAEL COHEN'S OBJECTION
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(DKT.#91) ON THE BASIS OF
PLAINTIFF'S NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH LOCAL RULE 7-3 AND THIS
COURT'S STANDING ORDER
Assigned for All Purposes to the
Hon. S. James Otero

25

Date:
December 3, 2018
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Location: 350 West 1st Street
Courtroom 10C, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012

26

Action Filed: March 6, 2018

23
24

27
28
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED JURY TRIAL

 Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2642

1

Defendants Essential Consultants LLC (“EC”) and Michael Cohen

2

3 (collectively, “Cohen”) hereby respectfully object to Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to
4 Amend to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. #91). Specifically, Plaintiff's
5 counsel has yet again refused to abide by Local Rule 7-31 and this Court's Standing
6 Order (ECF No. #11)2. (Blakely Dec. ¶3) This is not the first time Plaintiff’s counsel
7
8

1

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

L.R. 7-3 Conference of Counsel Prior to Filing of Motions.
In all cases not listed as exempt in L.R. 16-12, and except in
connection with discovery motions (which are governed by L.R.
37-1 through 37-4) and applications for temporary restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions, counsel contemplating the filing
of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss
thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated
motion and any potential resolution. The conference shall take
place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion. If the
parties are unable to reach a resolution which eliminates the
necessity for a hearing, counsel for the moving party shall include
in the notice of motion a statement to the following effect: “This
motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date).

18
2

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Meet and Confer Requirement: For all cases not exempt
under L.R. 16-12, and except in connection with discovery motions,
applications for temporary restraining orders, or preliminary
injunctions, counsel contemplating filing of any motion shall first
contact opposing counsel to "discuss thoroughly, referably in
person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any
potential resolution." L.R. 7-3. The Court construes this
requirement strictly. Half-hearted attempts at compliance with this
rule will not satisfy counsel's obligation. The parties must discuss
the substantive grounds for the motion and attempt to reach an
accord that would eliminate the need for the motion. The Court
strongly emphasizes that under L.R. 7-3, discussions of the
substance of contemplated motions are to take place, if at all
possible, in person. Only in exceptional cases will a telephonic
conference be allowed. All motions must include a declaration by
(footnote continued)
-2OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:2643

1 has filed documents in violation of the Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order.
2 (See ECF Nos. 32 & 34) Indeed, this Court has admonished Plaintiff’s counsel on two
3 separate occasions regarding their failure to abide by same. (ECF Nos. 35 & 63)
4

This Court has Ordered that:

5

As this is the second time in this one month old action a failure to meet and

6

confer has been brought before the Court, every further motion presented to the

7

Court must include either (1) a stipulation signed by both parties that

8

confirms a meet and confer has occurred, or (2) a declaration from the moving

9

party explaining the exhaustive efforts undertaken to conduct a meet and confer

10

and the exact reasons why the parties have failed to do so.

11 (ECF No. 35)
12

On October 29, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel called Mr. Cohen’s counsel without

13 warning and simply asked if he would agree to stipulate to allow Plaintiff to file a
14 Second Amended Complaint to remove the action for defamation. (Blakely Decl. ¶3)
15 Plaintiff’s counsel did not offer or otherwise provide any basis for such a motion or
16 legal authority supporting same. (id.)
17

On October 31, 2018, at Mr. Cohen’s counsel’s urging, Plaintiff finally

18 provided some legal authority, albeit generic, concerning Plaintiff’s proposed motion.
19 (Blakely Decl. ¶4)
20

After exchanging emails, Plaintiff and Mr. Cohen’s counsel met in person in

21 Newport Beach on November 1, 2018 and had a discussion regarding Plaintiff’s
22 proposed motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 and this Court’s Standing Order. Mr.
23 Cohen’s counsel indicated he would oppose such a motion, which was clearly
24
25
26
27

counsel briefly describing the parties' discussion and attempt to
eliminate the need for the motion and the date of such discussion.
Filings not in compliance with L.R. 7-3 will be denied.

28
(footnote continued)
-3OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:2644

1 designed to avoid Mr. Cohen’s Anti-SLAPP motion which is very likely to be
2 granted. (Blakely Decl. ¶5) When Mr. Cohen’s counsel observed that pursuant to
3 the Local Rules and Standing Order that Plaintiff would not be able to have this
4 motion heard prior to the December 3, 2018 hearing on the Anti-SLAPP Motion3 and
5 asked whether Plaintiff would be seeking ex parte relief to shorten time, Plaintiff’s
6 counsel coyly responded – “you let us worry about that.” (Blakely Decl. ¶5)
7

Mr. Trump is a co-Defendant in this case. I have confirmed with Mr. Trump’s

8 counsel that Plaintiff has not met and conferred them concerning their proposed
9 Motion. (Blakely Decl. ¶6)
10

This Court has made it very clear that Local Rule 7-3 meetings should be held

11 in person. (ECF No. 11) Pursuant to LR 7-3, this conference shall take place at least
12 seven (7) days prior to the filing of any motion. The parties met on November 1,
13 2018, making November 8, 2018 the first date Plaintiff could file the motion under
14 the Local Rules and Standing Order, and November 10, 2018 the first date the Motion
15 could be scheduled to be heard. Mr. Cohen filed his Anti-SLAPP motion on April 9,
16 2018. Consequently, Plaintiff’s counsel has had almost seven months to meet and
17 confer with Cohen’s counsel in compliance with the Local Rules and Standing Order
18 – yet they have chosen not to do so. Furthermore, despite having been reminded of
19 the Local Rules and Standing Order by Mr. Cohen’s counsel, and having been
20 previously warned by this Court, Plaintiff’s Counsel have once again chosen to
21 deliberately violate same. Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a stipulation between the
22 parties that a meet and confer has occurred, failed to provide a declaration explaining
23 the exhaustive efforts purportedly undertaken to conduct a meet and confer, and have
24 filed a Motion in violation of Local Rule 7-3. The clear message being sent is that
25 Plaintiff’s counsel doesn’t have to abide by the same rules as other attorneys or
26
27
3

28 No. 83

A date and briefing schedule to which Plaintiff had previously stipulated. ECF
-4OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:2645

1 otherwise heed this Court’s Orders.
2

Based on the foregoing, Defendants Essential Consultant's LLC and Michael

3 Cohen hereby respectfully request that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to File
4 Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #91) be denied. Furthermore, Cohen requests that
5 Plaintiff’s counsel be sanctioned for their continued violation of the Local Rules and
6 this Court’s Orders.
7 Dated: November 5, 2018

BLAKELY LAW GROUP

8
9
10
11
12

By: /s/ Brent H. Blakely
BRENT H. BLAKELY
Attorneys for Defendants
ESSENTIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC and
MICHAEL COHEN

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:2646

1
2
3

DECLARATION OF BRENT H. BLAKELY
I, Brent H. Blakely, declare:
1.

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of

4 California and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, among
5 other courts. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge and, if
6 called and sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify hereto.
7

2.

I am a partner of the law firm of Blakely Law Group, counsel of record

8 for Defendant Essential Consultants, LLC (“EC”) and Defendant Michael D. Cohen
9 (collectively, “Defendants”).
10

3.

On October 29, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel, Ahmed Ibrahim, called me

11 without warning and simply asked if I would agree to stipulate to allow Plaintiff to
12 file a Second Amended Complaint to remove the action for defamation. Mr. Ibrahim
13 did not offer or otherwise provide any basis for such a motion or legal authority
14 supporting same.
15

4.

On October 31, 2018, at my urging, Mr. Ibrahim finally provided some

16 legal authority, albeit generic, concerning the proposed motion.
17

5.

After exchanging emails, I met with Mr. Ibrahim in Newport Beach on

18 November 1, 2018 and had a discussion regarding Plaintiff’s proposed motion. I
19 indicated that Mr. Cohen would oppose such a motion, which was clearly designed to
20 avoid Mr. Cohen’s Anti-SLAPP motion which now seemed very likely would be
21 granted. When I observed that pursuant to the Local Rules and Standing Order that
22 Plaintiff would not be able to have this motion heard prior to the December 3, 2018
23 hearing on the Anti-SLAPP Motion and asked Mr. Ibrahim whether Plaintiff would be
24 seeking ex parte relief to shorten time, Mr. Ibrahim coyly responded – “you let us
25 worry about that.” (Blakely Decl. ¶ )
26

6.

I have confirmed with Mr. Trump’s counsel that Plaintiff has not met and

27 conferred them concerning their proposed Motion.
28
-6OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 Case 2:18-cv-02217-SJO-FFM Document 92 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:2647

1
2

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

3 America that the foregoing is true and correct.
4
5
6

Executed on November 5, 2018, at Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Brent H. Blakely
BRENT H. BLAKELY

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT