Stern vs OQuinn Defaults and Dismissals Oh My
Interesting documents from Stern vs O’Quinn the past two days. There was a hearing on Monday September 15th. Lin Wood by letter to the Judge asked that during the hearing, Judge Rosenbaum address Wood’s complaint that some materials that were granted in the Omnibus Order from August 29th 2008 to be turned over to Stern were still being withheld.
In “Order”, numbered 180, it appears that Judge Rosenbaum examined many documents over the course of 2 and 1/2 hour hearing and determined what was missing and needed to be turned over. She also determined a host of other documents that do not need to be produced. O’Quinn has until September 17th which is tomorrow to produce the documents.
In 174, Stern applies for a default judgment. He says that O’Quinn has “failed to plead or otherwise defend”. In 176, the Clerk of Court states that O’Quinn is in default for failure to appear, answer or otherwise plead to the original complaint filed within the time required by law.
In 178, O’Quinn files his answer listing which allegations he admits to from the First Amended Complaint and which he denies and which he neither admits nor denies. There are a ton of numbers there to compare to the First Amended Complaint.
Back in document 172, Judge Dimitrouleas filed an order for Stern to show cause as to why the case “should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution”. Sterns answer is 175. In 179 Stern asks the court to enter a default judgment for him after an assessment by a jury for the tardy filing of 178.
So here are the questions that I have.
Will the Court grant Sterns request for Default?
Will Sterns arguments to “show cause” as ordered by the Court be good enough so the case is not dismissed” due to lack of prosecution”?
Will Lin Wood get a pain in the neck from having to compare all the allegation numbers 178 with the actual allegations in the First Amended Complaint to see which are affirmed and which are denied?
And here is the kicker. Both sides requested an extension for discovery and it was denied in 173. Discovery is over September 19th.
Judge Dimitrouleas however said that any discovery issues after the 19th, and that would include depositions, will not involve the Court. In other words, don’t come crying to the Court if a discovery issue arises after the 19th. The court will not be involved.
091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_180.pdf
091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_179.pdf
091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_178.pdf
091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_177.pdf
091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_176.pdf
091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_175.pdf
091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_174.pdf
091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_173.pdf
September 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Geez Louise! This is like watching one of Spock/Kirk’s interstellar chess games…it leaves you wondering WTF!
Highly amusing was O’Quinn’s “numeric” response. I’m not planning to go back and match them up and I pity the poor aide Woodie tells to do it for him! lol.
Anyone remember Michael Jackson’s Thriller video? I have a feeling Woodie may have morphed yesterday! LOL
September 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Thank you for making these documents for us to read!
The portions I find most interesting are O’Quinn’s defense that $tern had a “notorious” (translated rotten) reputation before O’Quinn ever made any comments about him on TV (easily proven by many public blogs). And that “some or all” of the comments O’Quinn made about $tern were TRUE! That puts $tern in a position to prove that the comments were NOT true.
http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_178.pdf
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
pg 6 of 8
Seventh Affirmative Defense
19. As its seventh affirmative defense, O’Quinn asserts that Plaintiff had a notorious reputation prior to any of the statements attributed to O’Quinn in the First Amended Complaint were made, and that accordingly, Plaintiff could not have suffered any damage to his reputation as a result of any statements made by O’Quinn.
p. 7 of 8
Tenth Affirmative Defense
22. As its tenth affirmative defense, O’Quinn asserts that some or all of the statements attributed to him in the First Amended Complaint are, in fact, true.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Inquiring mind, I seen your response on Topix too, and you point out the obvious of Stern’s notorious reputation before any of this. All someone has to do is watch Anna’s reality shows and his actions in that and also Anna’s appearances at various places with him tagging along, and one then can make up their own mind after seeing that imfao.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I see there were some broken links to the First Amended Complaint. They are fixed now.
YW Inquiring Mind
September 17th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Maybe Stern should sue Lin Wood since he called it “MURDERS”, not deaths in an early legal document he filed on this case.
You know it’s bad when your own attorney can’t call it “DEATHS”. LMAO!
September 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Wasn’t it during that highly humorous deposition of John O’Quinn? It seems like that was where Woods said it.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Yes, it was.
No wonder he drunk dialed Greta. LOL
I wonder if he drunk dialed Howie to try and explain away that little slip of the tongue.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall…
September 18th, 2008 at 7:00 am
HK$ COULD have SHOULD have protected both Anna and Daniel AS HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THE DUFFLE BAG OF DRUGS!!!!
But HE DIDN’T - END RESULT - THEY ARE BOTH DEAD!!!!
BOTTOM LINE…..
HK$ MUST BE CHARGED WITH NEGLIGENCE!!!!
{Just because he fell in love with Anna is NO DEFENCE…In Australia it is unacceptable for a lawyer & client to “fraternize!”}
I don’t care how manipulating ANS was…Howard had a duty of care {sure if he exercised it he TOO would be SLUNG ON THE EVER GROWING TIP that Anna “got rid” of anyone who wouldn’t supply her drugs…{at the end she was only left with bottom feeders}…BUT PLEASE LET ME EMPHASISE THAT AS HER LAWYER HE HAD A DUTY OF CARE…he failed to exercise this duty…I hope the American courts realise this!!!
September 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
PS
Sorry..I forgot to mention that “Mr I want 6%” {of the Marshall estate - WHICH IMO WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!}..shows how much he cared for his cash-cow ANS!
I would be very interested to read how Howard has been making a living??? {he told the court that his parents are supporting him…need an update!!!}
Larry fought for Dannielynn and I know that he will continue to fight for her…I HOPE THAT THE MARSHALL ESTATE AWARDS HER NOTHING!!!! Then this beautiful little girl will grow up NORMAL!
AMERICA - you are sooo long winded…HURRY UP & FINALIZE THE MARSHALL ESTATE!!!!!
September 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jill, from Australia you are obsessed with Howard K.Stern.You constantly attack him on various internet forums.HKS is a free man, he did not murder anybody.He did not hurt Anna & Daniel Smith.He was Anna’s lawyer/business partner, that’s all.He had contract with ANS, he was entitled to get 6%, people get paid for their work.There’s nothing strange about it.Your sweet L. Birkhead impregnated heroin addicted woman for money.Anna had to flee to the Bahamas,because he wanted big money from her.Howard was just a scapegoat in that story.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
K. Santy, LA Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jill, from Australia you are obsessed with Howard K.Stern.You constantly attack him on various internet forums.HKS is a free man, he did not murder anybody.He did not hurt Anna & Daniel Smith.He was Anna’s lawyer/business partner, that’s all.He had contract with ANS, he was entitled to get 6%, people get paid for their work.There’s nothing strange about it.Your sweet L. Birkhead impregnated heroin addicted woman for money.Anna had to flee to the Bahamas,because he wanted big money from her.Howard was just a scapegoat in that story.
Link, please, that says that Anna was addicted to heroin.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Show me formal, official statement or verdict that Howard K. Stern stole/embezzled A.N.Smith money, and murdered Daniel Smith and Vickie L. Marshall A.K.A Anna Nicole Smith?
P.S Read V.L.Marshall autopsy report
Methadone is substitute drug for heroin addicts.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
K. Santy, LA Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Show me formal, official statement or verdict that Howard K. Stern stole/embezzled A.N.Smith money, and murdered Daniel Smith and Vickie L. Marshall A.K.A Anna Nicole Smith?
P.S Read V.L.Marshall autopsy report
Methadone is substitute drug for heroin addicts.
Methadone is also used for pain control in a lot of people who suffer excruciating back pains, pain from various cancers, etc. Trust me on this one. It is not fair I think that you just label Anna a heroin addict without all the facts.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:02 am
K. Santy, LA Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“Your sweet L. Birkhead impregnated heroin addicted woman for money.”
Geez, I thought it took two people to get pregnant. Sperm is nothing without an egg and vice versa.
September 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Question for QV - do you plan to post the documents in the Birkhead vs Opri lawsuit and counter lawsuit? (Case #s BC372018 and BS109143 - Los Angeles). Just wondering.
I am very interested in what is happening in these cases, as well as all the documents you post for us on the Stern vs the world lawsuits.
Also, do you have a link to the news that Debra Opri was cleared in the investigation by the California State Bar (re: complaint that was filed by Birkhead)?
Thank you.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:11 am
Hi I.M. It depends upon the people who get the docs and kindly donate them to the site.
Take care
September 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Thank you QV!
Birkhead/Opri documents
Case No. BC372018
Related to BS 109143 (lead case)
Birkhead’s lawsuit - http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0601_birkhead_02.pdf
(June 1, 2007)
Opri cross complaint - the lawsuit 36 pages Sept. 24, 2007
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0924_birkhead_wm.pdf
Opri Petition to Compel Arbitration – (May 29, 2007)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0529_opri_birkhead_00.pdf
Court ruling against binding arbitration
court ruling: 7 pages Sept. 6, 2007 Case # BC372018
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0906_opri_v2_2_opt_wm.pdf
Birkhead/Opri fee agreement – (Sept 29 and 30, 2006)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0619_opri_birkhead_agreement_wm.pdf
Copy of attorney letters (Sept 5, 2007)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0805_trope_wm.pdf
Birkhead’s injunction – (June 19,2007)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0619_opri_birkhead_injunction.pdf
Birkhead’s declaration – (June 19,2007)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0619_opri_birkhead_declaration_wm2.pdf
IMG declaration – (June 19,2007)
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0619_opri_birkhead_declaration_wm.pdf
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 am
Wow! Thanks I.M. for gathering all those together. I’ve got some catching up to do.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
YW QV, those are just the documents that TMZ posted a while back.
All of the documents in the Opri/Birkhead cases can be downloaded and saved (paid for) at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil/
Just click on “Case Summary” and type in the Case number(s).
Case # BC372018
Case # BS109143
The next Hearing in the case is on Sept. 25th, and it is a Status of Appeal Hearing. Ms Opri is asking the Judge to reconsider his ruling not to order Birkhead into binding arbitration.
Ms Opri has a new Declaration from Dana Walker, a Birkhead family friend of 20 years, and Ms Opri has evidence that Birkhead lied to the Court about signing a retainer agreement on a day when he was not even in California (he was in New York).
September 25th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Thanks IM, for posting those Docs here, definately got some catching up to do on that case.