Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - Russ Whitney vs. John T. Reed lawsuit chronology

Guest

Russ Whitney vs. John T. Reed lawsuit chronology

COLUMN HEADINGS: Date Action
6/25/02
Whitney and Whitney Information Systems, Inc. file suit against John T. Reed in U.S. District (federal) Court in Fort Myers, FL Case number 2:02-CV-288-FTM-29DNF assigned to Judge John Steele.
Whitney’s private lawyer is Chris Salamone, FL Bar # 0780390
The lawsuit was signed by Louis Gigliotti, FL Bar # 71935 of the law firm of Brinkley, McNerney, Morgan, Solomon, & Tatum, LLP of Fort Lauderdale, FL
7/14/02
Whitney’s process server serves lawsuit on Reed
7/31/02
Reed files motion for extension of time to answer or move to 8/26/02
7/31/02
Court grants Reed’s motion to extend time to answer or move
8/23/02
Reed files motions to dismiss the complaint for improper venue [FRCP 12(b)(3), case should have been filed in CA not FL] and failure to state a claim under which relief can be granted [FRCP 12(b)(6), complaint does not really allege violations of law].
Reed also files a special motion to strike the complaint under the California Anti-SLAPP statute [CA CCP §425.16]. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Developers and others began to sue persons who objected to zoning changes and such some years ago. The suits were apparently meritless, but aimed at shutting up opponents. The CA legislature reacted by passing the Anti-SLAPP statute. It says that when a defendant is sued for libel and such after speaking out in a matter of public interest, he or she may file a special motion to strike. Then the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to prove that he will probably prevail in the suit. If he cannot carry that burden, the suit is over and the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs.
FL’s Anti-SLAPP statute only applies to government actions, but Reed’s motion explains why CA law should apply notwithstanding the fact that the complaint was filed in a FL branch of the U.S. District court.
9/13/02
Whitney files motion for extension of time to respond to Reed’s motions. Reed agrees to the extension.
9/17/02
Court grants Whitney’s motion for extension of time to 9/23/02 to respond to Reed’s motions.
9/23/02
Whitney files response.
10/?/02
Louis Gigliotti leaves the law firm of Brinkley, McNerney, Morgan, Solomon, & Tatum, LLP and becomes a one-man law firm
10/28/02
Court denies all of Reed’s motions and issues a Show Cause order to Whitney giving him eleven days to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, i.e., failure to file a Case Management Report within time prescribed by Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B).
11/6/02
Reed files motion for extension of time to answer complaint
11/7/02
Whitney files response to order to show cause and motion for extension of time to file case management report
11/13/02
Court grants Reed’s motion for extension of time to file answer to complaint
11/12/02
Court grants Whitney’s motion for extension of time to file Case Management Report
11/18/02
Whitney’s attorney files case management report
11/29/02
Reed deadline to answer complaint
11/29/02
Reed files answer to complaint
12/17/02
Deadline for stipulation selecting mediator.
12/17/02
Reed files change of mediator stipulation.
1/10/03
Louis Gigliotti says, “I am no longer representing Whitney in this case. The new lawyer is Scott Rothstein. Contact him if you wish.”
1/10/03
Deadline to amend complaint or answer
1/29/03
Whitney’s new attorneys Scott Rothstein and Christina M. Kitterman file a new lawsuit against Reed in state court (17th District Circuit Court in Broward County which is the Fort Lauderdale area—Judge Miette Burnstein). The suit is similar to the federal suit, only it does not mention the Lanham Act, a federal trademark law. If they had mentioned it, the case would have to be in federal court. Also, it alleges “tortious interference with a business relationship” rather than libel as a cause of action.
2/10/03
Reed receives in the mail a copy of an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction file by Rothstein and Kitterman in the Broward County state court. This asks the court to shut down Reed’s entire Web site immediately.
2/12/03
Reed files Notice of Removal with the federal court in Fort Lauderdale to remove the new lawsuit from the state court and put it in federal court on the grounds that the suit involves parties who reside in different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. 28 USC 1441(b)
2/12/03
Reed sends letter to Fort Myers judge and copy to Whitney lawyers complaining of Whitney legal tactics and foot dragging.
2/15/03
Reed receives amended complaint filed in state court. The only change is adding the phrase “but less than $75,000” in the amount sought paragraph.
2/20/03
Fort Myers judge issues order that Reed’s 2/12/03 letter violated local procedure rules and orders letter returned to Reed.
2/25/03
Reed files motion to change venue of the state court suit that was removed to Fort Lauderdale federal court to the Fort Myers federal court. Case # 03-60195 Assigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra.
2/26/03
Whitney attorney Scott W. Rothstein files a four-page motion, complete with legal argument and statutory and decision citations and a proposed order, to strike Reed’s 2/12/03 letter. Rothstein also serves a proposed four-page Rule 11 motion also complaining about the 2/12/03 letter on Reed.
3/4/03
Reed files four-sentence opposition to motion to strike letter that mainly says the matter is moot because of the Court’s 2/20/03 returning the letter to Reed.
3/7/03
Court denies Rothstein’s motion as moot. One wonders how much Russ Whitney had to pay Rothstein in attorney fees for that futile exercise.
3/7/03
Reed files motion to dismiss Whitney’s Fort Myers case for failure to prosecute.
3/10/03
Scott Rothstein says he has changed his mind about filing a Rule 11 motion against Reed for sending a letter to Judge Steele.
3/13/03
Whitney attorney Scott W. Rothstein files a motion to remand the case filed in Broward County and removed to federal court by Reed. This motion, if successful, would put the case back in state court.
3/14/03
Whitney attorney Scott W. Rothstein files a motion for an extra five days to respond to Reed’s motion for change of venue from the Fort Lauderdale federal court to the Fort Myers federal court.
3/14/03
Whitney attorney Scott W. Rothstein files a motion to strike Reed’s motion to dismiss. His stated reason is that Reed’s motion to dismiss did not include a memorandum of law as required by the Local Rules of the Fort Myers Court.
3/14/03
Whitney attorney Scott W. Rothstein files a motion for an extra five days to respond to Reed’s motion to dismiss.
3/22/03
Reed files opposition to Whitney’s motion for remand of the state court suit back to state court. (U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale)
3/22/03
Reed tells Fort Lauderdale federal court that he does not oppose Whitney’s request for five days to answer change of venue motion.
3/24/03
Reed files opposition to Rothstein’s motion to strike Reed’s Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
3/24/03
Reed files opposition to Rothstein’s request for five extra days to respond to motion to dismiss.
3/25/03
Court denies Reed’s motion to dismiss as too harsh at this stage and refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Frazier to oversee discovery phase. Court also denies Rothstein’s motion to strike the dismissal motion.
3/28/03
Whitney Information Network, Inc. files a new lawsuit—the third—against Reed. This one’s in the U.S. District Court in Miami (Case No. 03-60597 assigned to Judge Patricia Seitz. Apparently Scott Rothstein never files twice in the same court. Whitney is now suing Reed in three different courts. The third suit is for defamation, namely saying that Whitney Information Network is insolvent. See my ReedonWINinc.html page for details of the financial status of Whitney Information Network, Inc. When I said they were insolvent, I defined that term to mean that they have a negative net worth, which is beyond dispute because they admit it in their SEC filings. Because there are other definitions of insolvent, I switched to the phrase “negative net worth.”
4/2/03
Reed files supplement to his opposition to remand in the Fort Lauderdale federal court. The supplement informs that court that Whitney has just filed a third lawsuit which says the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Reed argues that all three suits should be combined to see if the total amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Whitney’s remand motion claims the amount is less than $75,000, as it must to be successful.
4/1/03
Reed files motion seeking permission to attend the hearing described below by telephone rather than in person.
4/3/03
Whitney’s attorney goes after Reed by contacting his Web host company
4/4/03
Whitney motion for a preliminary injunction against Reed
4/14/03
Reed files motion to dismiss Whitney’s third lawsuit on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)]. Essentially, this means either they sued you for violating a non-existent law or based on non-existent facts. In this case, they said my statement that Whitney’s corporation was insolvent was false. It was not. The definition of insolvent I used means negative net worth and there is no doubt their public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission admit they have a negative net worth. I gave the court a copy of their latest SEC document.
4/16/03
Hearing regarding discovery issues in the Fort Myers Court at 10:30 AM in Courtroom C, fifth floor, U.S. Courthouse, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, FL. Parties appeared by telephone.
4/16/03
Deadline for disclosure of Whitney’s expert reports
4/19/03
Reed files second supplement to opposition to motion for remand citing the stated intention of Whitney’s attorney Rothstein to consolidate the Fort Lauderdale and Miami cases.
4/29/03
Whitney files motion to dismiss the case filed on 6/25/02 in Fort Myers federal court
Whitney dismisses the first of the three lawsuits against Reed
4/29/03
Whitney files opposition in Fort Lauderdale Court saying Reed lied when he said Plaintiffs definitely planned to consolidate the Miami and Fort Lauderdale cases
4/30/03
Deadline for disclosure of Reed’s expert reports
5/5/03
Fort Myers court orders dismissal of original case
5/7/03
Reed files a motion for costs and reasonable attorney fees in the Fort Myers case. Although Reed was not represented by an attorney, he consulted with one throughout the case.
5/7/03
Whitney withdraws motion for remand in the Fort Lauderdale court and asks court to consolidate the Miami and Fort Lauderdale cases into the Fort Lauderdale court
5/21/03
Miami court denies Reed’s motion to dismiss because Whitney failed to state a claim
5/21/03
Miami court issues order to Whitney to show cause why this case should not be transferred to the Northern District of California (San Francisco)
5/29/03
Reed files motions asking the courts to give him ten days to answer the complaints in Fort Lauderdale, the ten days to start when the courts decide what court the consolidated case will be in
5/30/03
Whitney files amended complaint in Miami case changing the portion in which they claim venue is proper in Miami.
5/30/03
Whitney files response to Miami court’s order to show cause why the case should not be transferred to San Francisco
5/31/03
Reed files response to Miami court’s order to show cause why the case should not be transferred to San Francisco
5/31/03
Reed files motion for change of venue from Miami to San Francisco federal court for the convenience of witnesses and in the interest of justice
5/31/03
Reed files motion for leave to amend his original motion to dismiss in the Miami case
6/4/03
Fort Myers Court denies Reed’s motion for costs and attorney fees saying, “While it is clear that defendant is the prevailing pary in this action, there is no legal basis which would allow him to recover attorney fees when he was not represented by an attorney in the action.” The court says they cannot award costs because Reed “declined to itemize” his costs. Reed asked the court to make its decision in two steps so he would not unnecessarily divulge information that would be helpful to Whitney in the two remaining suits. That is, Reed was going to itemize the costs after the court said costs were indeed recoverable.
7/7/03
The search for Russ Whitney’s ‘wicked stepmother’
Russ Whitney threatens his stepmother into silence
9/03
Reed files amended motion to move case to San Francisco
3/04
Fort Lauderdale federal court denies Reed’s motions to strike under the California anti-S.L.A.P.P. statute, to amend his motion to dismiss in Miami federal court, and to transfer the case to the San Francisco federal court
3/04
Reed files motion to move the case from Fort Lauderdale to Fort Myers
3/18/04
Reed files answers to Whitney’s Fort Lauderdale and Miami lawsuits and five counterclaims against Whitney
3/26/04
Whitney files opposition to change of venue to Fort Myers
4/1/04
Reed files reply to Whitney’s opposition to opposition to change of venue to Fort Myers
4/7/04
Whitney motion for more time to respond to Reed’s answers and counterclaims
4/16/04
Whitney motion for still more time to respond to Reed’s answers and counterclaims
4/26/04
Whitney files motion to dismiss every counterclaim Reed filed
4/26/04
Whitney files motion to strike every affirmative defense Reed filed
5/3/04
Reed files motion for more time to respond to Whitney’s motions to dismiss and strike
5/6/04
Whitney tries to get Reed to give a deposition in another case: Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Glenn Purdy,— a former Whitney instructor and member of Whitney’s “Power Team”
Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004 by John T. Reed
Last update 6/18/04

Guru ratings | Real estate investment page | Order form | Real estate investment books | Main Reed on Whitney page | Whitney claims vs. Reed research | Status of Whitney vs. Reed lawsuit | Whitney hit and run | Whitney assets | Have information on Whitney? | Review of Building Wealth | Whitney affiliations | Whitney publications | Unauthorized biography of Whitney | Suing Whitney | Whitney and income taxes
John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, Email: johnreed@johntreed.com

CONSUMER WARNING NOTICE: I recently saw Russ Whitney on a late night TV infomercial and then attended one of his "free" seminars. Unfortunately I believed all of their LIES and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS and I paid thousands of dollars to go to his "training camps". Needless to say I was clearly ripped off, cheated and lied to by Russ Whitney and his employees (band of thieves). My mistake was not searching the Internet to find out more about Russ Whitney and his company's HORRIBLE reputation for fraud, deception and illegal activities. Had I searched online I would have found out about THOUSANDS of customers being cheated, HUNDREDS of investigations by the Attorney General into the fraud of Russ Whitney and his company's, and that Russ Whitney himself is a CONVICTED VIOLENT FELON and spent years in PRISON. I saved the cached pages from the major search engines of the John Reed lawsuit with Russell Whitney and the TRUTH and FACTS that Reed discovered during his investigation of Whitney. I am posting this information on real estate discussion boards so other people do NOT get cheated and ripped off like I did.