Nn Oo FP WO NY

2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 39 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1of3 Page ID #:377

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.

38 Miller Avenue, #263

Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900

blgibbs @ wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INGENUITY 13 LLC, No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ANONYMOUS JOHN DOE MOVANT’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE OTIS D. WRIGHT

Plaintiff, Vv.

JOHN DOE

Defendant.

eee a a a ee ee eee

An anonymous John Doe Movant claiming to be the “Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv- 08333-ODW-JC” has filed a Request for Leave to File an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification of Honorable Judge Otis D. Wright Il. (ECF No. 38 at 1.) Thus far, Attorney Morgan Pietz has submitted filings in approximately twenty cases in the Central District on the basis of the fact that he represents the putative John Doe in this case. However, Mr. Pietz has not offered a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. As it stands, Mr. Pietz could very well be intervening in all of these cases for his own ends, with no real client that he is defending. If Mr. Pietz wishes to contest the plain, unambiguous evidence of bias that Plaintiff has demonstrated in its Motion for Disqualification, then Mr.

Pietz should have to submit evidence that he is, in fact, representing the actual individual he

Nn Oo FF W WN

2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 39 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2of3 Page ID #:378

claims to represent, and not merely inserting himself into cases on the pretense of representing that individual.

This concern is particularly relevant to the instant Cause, wherein Plaintiff has asserted that the judge assigned to the instant action is biased and should be disqualified. Mr. Pietz has demonstrated repeated hostility toward Plaintiff and toward the undersigned, and, as such, would have sufficient motive to interfere with Plaintiff's cases without the formality of actually having a client involved in the instant litigation. For the reasons contained herein, the “putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC” could be an invention of Mr. Pietz, and Mr. Pietz should thus be required to submit evidence that he actually represents the individual whom he claims to represent.

Second, Mr. Pietz states that his “request is occasioned because it is not clear whether the Disqualification Motion is being made on an ex parte basis or not—it does not comply with any of the required ex parte procedures mandated by Local Rule.” (ECF No. 38, pg. 2.) Further, he points out that there was no hearing date set for this motion. Mr. Pietz appears very confused about the disqualification procedure. It seems that Mr. Pietz is not familiar with the Court’s Rules and/or General Order 08-05, something that he should have been familiar with when applying to practice in this district. First of all, as pointed out above, a non-party has no right to interject its response in any matter. Second, should he interject, he should at least try to do some nominal research to ensure that he is correct in his arguments. Per the procedures laid out in General Order 08-05, the Motion made here was “referred to the Clerk for random assignment to another judge.” In other words, at the time of filing the

Motion, Plaintiff had no idea as to who the “another judge” would be. In other words, it was

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOVANT’S EX PARTE DISCOVERY APPLICATION No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC

—

Nn Oo FP W WN

2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 39 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3o0f3 Page ID #:379

up to the new judge to assign, if necessary, a hearing in the case. Plaintiff could not notice a hearing in front of an unnamed judge, nor does the Court’s Rules and/or General Order 08- 05. Third, there is no allowance in the Court’s Rules and/or General Order 08-05 for a party (or a non-interested party) to interject a response to a disqualification motion. Just as his previous emails to Plaintiff’s counsel and the Court’s clerk requested legal advice on how/if he should respond, it seems that Mr. Pietz is now requesting leave to file a response simply because he does not know whether he is in fact entitled to file such a response in this matter.

The Court should simply deny his request.

Respectfully Submitted, PRENDA LAW INC. DATED: January 7, 2013

By: /s/ Brett L. Gibbs

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.

38 Miller Avenue, #263

Mill Valley, CA 94941 blgibbs @ wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOVANT’S EX PARTE DISCOVERY APPLICATION No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC