Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Ray Charles Rcf, A California Corporation v. Raenee Robinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 11, 2013

THE RAY CHARLES RCF, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RAENEE ROBINSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; RAY CHARLES ROBINSON, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL; SHEILA ROBINSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; DAVID ROBINSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; ROBERT F. ROBINSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; REATHA BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ROBYN MOFFETT, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Audrey B. Collins

JS-6

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

Based on this Court's Order Re: Defendants' Motion To Strike And Motion To Dismiss dated January 25, 2013, and entered January 28, 2013 (Docket No. 41):

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff The Ray Charles Foundation's ("RCF") First Claim for Relief is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because RCF lacks standing, as set forth in the Court's January 25, 2013 order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that RCF's Second Claim for Relief is STRUCK pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16, because RCF's claim is based on activity protected under the statute, and RCF has no reasonable probability of prevailing on this claim, as set forth in the Court's January 25, 2013 order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that RCF's Third Claim for Relief is STRUCK pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16, because RCF's claim is based on activity protected under the statute and RCF has no reasonable probability of prevailing on this claim, as set forth in the Court's January 25, 2013 order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants are entitled to their attorney's fees pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that because all of the flaws identified with RCF's First, Second and Third Claims for Relief are legal, any amendment would be futile and leave to amend is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Honorable Audrey B. Collins United States District Judge

20130211

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.