22 May 2009 |
|
Links: Letter of Voluntary Withdrawal Letter of Voluntary Withdrawal - corrected Original Story: Lawsuit Against Saharareporters/Ambassador Rotimi, et.al.
(1) The Court (in a memorandum/order dated May 19, 2009, signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte) denied without prejudice Plaintiff Emeka Ugwuonye’s Motion for Leave to Amend his original complaint against Rotimi, Aluko, Sowore dba Sahara Reporter, Domain by Proxy, preferring instead to "first focus on the pending Motion to Dismiss": This means that: (a) Dr. Valentine Ojo, Joe Doe and Jane Doe that Ugwuonye ADDED in his amendment, are NOT Defendants in any case filed by Ugwuonye at this time. (b) Domain by Proxy, Sowore's website domain info keeper, that Ugwuonye attempted to REMOVE in his amendment, remains a defendant in the case. (2) Noting that Plaintiff had "failed to file a timely response to the Motion to Dismiss", and bearing in mind "Defendant Aluko's filings in opposition to Plaintiff's Motions", the Court deferred ruling on Emeka Ugwuonye's Motion for Extension, requesting him instead to submit to the Court within 20 days of this May 19 order, a statement under penalties of perjury, indicating that he was truly out of the country to Nigeria. He is required to attach "a photocopy of the pages of his passport showing the date of his departure from and return to the United States." [Ugwuonye had previously indicated that he was away from the country from about April 16 to about April 24, 2009.] (3) Meanwhile, in response to our Motion to Dismiss the case, Ugwuonye actually filed (belatedly on May 19, 2009) a response, in sum conceding that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction on the case due to a controlling diversity principle (for example, Aluko and he are both from the State of Maryland, as is Ambassador Rotimi). [His words: "Plaintiff concedes the controlling effect of the above statute and case law. Plaintiff admits that he sought access to this court based on the diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff concedes also that jurisdiction would be proper with the the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and it will serve the interest of justice for the case against Aluko to proceed in the state court...."] Ugwuonye himself therefore requested "the court to either dismiss without prejudice in favor of Aluko or to remand his portion of this suit relating to Defendant Aluko to the County Circuit Court for Montgomery County" . (4)First, such a concession shows that any further argument before the Federal Court is a waste of the court's time. Secondly it being made by a lawyer of purported esteem and high legal standing in a matter as fundamental as jurisdiction shows negligence, and that he has malicious intention in filing the lawsuit in the first place. Aluko's lawyers believe that the Court will not refer the case to the local court, and that instead the Court will dismiss, but that is totally the Court's discretion. Aluko's lawyers ALSO did not entertain ANY motion from Ugwuonye to jointly refer the case to local court; (5) Aluko's formal response, which was to be filed pending Ugwuonye's fulfillment of his 20-day response with respect to his Nigerian travel particulars, was to include a "Motion for immediate dismissal" of tUgwuonye's frivolous case with extreme prejudice, including recovery of legal costs, while retaining the right to file a Motion for Sanction for filing a frivolous lawsuit . (6)On May 21 2009, Mr. Ugwuonye filed with the court his travel itinerary with pages of his passport showing that he arrived in the US two days earlier , he did NOT include the pages of the passport bearing his information and photographs.
(7)Also, on the same date, he filed two motions of "Voluntary dismissal" of his case relating to defendant Mobolaji Aluko and Domain by Proxy, Saharareporters website domain information keepers
(8) Saharareporters d/b/a Omoyele Sowore would be represented in the case by Brown D. Bruce and Laurie Ann Babinski of Baker Hostetler law firm in Washington DC *Ugwuonye, Ephraim is not allowed to practice as a lawyer at the Federal courts in Maryland but he is not representing himself as counsel in this case.
|
|||||||||







Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.