You forgot one part, bobmeister. Read it—learn it—live it:
“All Plaintiff contends in its ex parte application is that without bifurcation it will have to bear the onerous “burden” of having to present evidence to support its allegations! However, Business Wire's duty to substantiate its claims is the burden any plaintiff bears in filing suit. See generally F.R.C.P 11(b).
Business Wire argues that bifurcation “will not unduly prejudice defendants, yet they refused to stipulate to bifurcation.” (Ex Parte Motion at 2:17-18). What Business Wire fails to recognize, of course, is that it has the standard of review backwards! Business Wire must establish that, without ex parte relief, Business Wire will be irreparably prejudiced. See, e.g., Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Gas Co., 883 F.Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Of course, there is no showing whatsoever in this regard.
Counsel for Business Wire even argues that an ex parte order of bifurcation is appropriate due to his upcoming marriage and honeymoon. Surely, a good faith request for a continuance of the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion, and a refusal thereof, is a pre-requisite to moving for ex parte relief. However, counsel has made no such request. Moreover, Business Wire's law firm has many attorneys, and Business Wire has made no showing that no one other than Mr. Meyers could competently handle the hearing in this matter.”
webnode.com
…but thanks again, bobalicious, for making your HITT thread a forum for the Business Wire case, which you so often like to help publicize for us with your postings on the matter. |
