Varian's frivolous lawsuit revisited:
"...There are a variety of reasons for denying Plaintiffs' instant motion to amend their Complaint in this matter for a third time. These reasons include the undue delay in seeking to amend the Complaint, the prejudice to Defendants if Plaintiffs are allowed to do so, that all the discovery, especially the depositions, would have to be retaken and new discovery propounded, that there is now pending in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction which precludes the proposed amendment and that Plaintiffs have already been allowed several opportunities to amend.
Further, the Plaintiffs' request that the Court merely deem the new allegations denied in order to shorten the time to trial is preposterous. The proposed pleading is defective on its face by, for instance, failing to adequately specify special damages as to the proposed libel claim. Indeed, the Federal District Court, on motion brought by DAY, ordered the corporate Plaintiffs to specify their special damages in writing and when Plaintiffs failed to adequately do so, entered an order recommending that a portion of said damages be barred. Plaintiffs make only general allegations of special damages in their proposed complaint which are wholly lacking as a matter of statutory and common law.
Still further, the allegations of the proposed pleading ignores the order of the Federal District Court granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication that there was no competition between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Plaintiffs new proposed First Cause of Action is for 'Unfair Competition.' ..."
geocities.com
Damages?
You betcha! |
