The Points and Authorities form serves as a critical document in legal proceedings, outlining the legal arguments and citations to statutory, case law, and other legal precedents supporting a party’s position. It is most commonly utilized in motions and other requests to the court, such as seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Preliminary Injunction, to concisely present the rationale behind the request and persuade the court of its merit. To ensure accuracy and effectiveness in advancing your case, consider clicking the button below to start filling out your form.
When delving into the complexities of legal forms and proceedings, the Points and Authorities form emerges as a pivotal document integral to the judicial process, notably within the context of seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction. This form plays a critical role in legal disputes by providing a structured means through which attorneys present arguments and legal precedents to support their motion. The case of Orenthal James Simpson, represented by Gross & Belsky LLP, against Lawrence Schiller, Robert Kardashian, and others, provides a comprehensive example of how a Memorandum of Points and Authorities is leveraged in support of a plaintiff's ex parte application for a TRO and preliminary injunction. Grounded in the principle that attorney-client communications and the work produced by attorneys are protected and confidential, the document underscores the gravity of ethical duties, loyalty, and confidentiality. It illustrates how breaches of these duties, driven by the allure of fame, fortune, and potential financial gain, can lead to litigation seeking to preserve sensitive, privileged communications from public disclosure. By dissecting this specific filing, one gains insight into the multifaceted nature of the Points and Authorities form, which arms attorneys with a mechanism to argue their case before a court, emphasizing the enforcement of legal agreements and the innate rights clients possess against unauthorized disclosures of confidential information.
1Terry Gross (103878) Adam C. Belsky (147800)
2GROSS & BELSKY LLP
One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1040
3San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 544-0200
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
) Case No. __________
)
12
Plaintiff,
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
13
) PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
v.
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
14
) ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
15
LAWRENCE SCHILLER, ROBERT
KARDASHIAN, PROJECT 95
16
PRODUCTIONS, INC., and DOES 1-40,
Date:
August 15, 2000
Time:
8:30 a.m.
17
Defendants.
Dept.: 85/86
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO AND RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
INTRODUCTION
2It is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence that clients may speak to their attorneys in
3complete confidence, and that the work of their attorneys shall similarly be protected from disclosure.
4This principle obviously applies equally for all criminal defendants, popular or unpopular, rich or poor,
5famous or obscure. There is no media exception to an attorney’s ethical duties of loyalty and
6confidentiality to his client. It is also a basic principle of American law to enforce agreements
7prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information. Here, however, the temptation of fame and
8fortune blinded one of O.J. Simpson’s attorneys, Robert Kardashian, and an author, Lawrence Schiller,
9who saw the opportunityofa bestseller beckoning. They conspired to insinuate Schiller into Simpson’s
10confidence and for Kardashian to make surreptitious tape recordings and notes about confidentialclient
11information, which he disclosed to Schiller. Both made fraudulent representations that they were co-
12authoring a book and that they would submit any manuscript to Simpson to ensure that it contained no
13privileged or confidential information. Both breached their fiduciary duties and confidentiality
14agreements, first by writing a book, and now for Schiller to direct and produce a television miniseries,
15just in production, based almost entirely on improperly obtained information purported to be attorney-
16client privileged communications or confidential defense team discussions.
17A TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from any further actions to participate
18in or transfer rights associated with the miniseries is essential to preserve Simpson’s rights, as the wide
19dissemination of information concerning confidential client conversations and discussions cannot be
20undone. There is no First Amendment prohibition against an injunction to prevent disclosure of
21information obtained in violation of confidentiality agreements or in breach of fiduciary duties. That
22Schiller previously published a book containing information in the miniseries is not a defense to an
23injunction, since the miniseries screenplay contains additional, undisclosed information. Also, courts
24can enjoin a wrongdoer from further and more widespread acts of disclosure.
26Kardashian was one of Simpson’s lawyers during Simpson’s criminal trial. Schiller, a friend of
27Kardashian, called Kardashian immediately upon learning of the murders, and began encouraging
28Kardashian to surreptitiously take notes and tape record events. Gross Dec. ¶¶ 9(c), 10(c), 14(d), 17(a)
1& Exs. E, F, J, M. Near the end of the trial, Schiller encouraged Kardashian to represent he was co-
2authoring an “as-told-to” book from Kardashian’s point of view, with Schiller to do the writing.
3Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 2-3.
4At the close of Simpson’s trial, Simpson reminded his attorneys that, due to their fiduciary
5obligations, they could not disclose privileged communications or confidential client information,
6without written authorization. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 5, 19 & Exs. A, F; Dershowitz Dec. ¶¶ 2-4; Scheck
7Dec. ¶¶ 2-4; Neufeld Dec. ¶¶ 2, 3, 7; Chapman Dec. ¶¶ 2-3; Douglas Dec. ¶¶ 2-3; Blasier Dec. ¶¶ 2-3;
8Thompson Dec. ¶¶ 2-3; Bailey Dec. ¶¶ 2, 5; Taft Dec. ¶¶ 3,8.
9Kardashian and Schiller each spoke to Simpson, and stated that they wanted to co-author a
10book from Kardashian’s point of view. They each agreed that they would not include privileged and
11confidential client information in any manuscript unless Simpson gave approval, and would submit any
12manuscript to Simpson prior to publication for review and deletion of such material. Both sent letters
13to Simpson that confirmed they were collaborating on a book. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17,
1428-29 & Exs. C-D; Taft Dec. ¶¶ 4-12 & Exs. B-C, E-F; Neufeld Dec. ¶ 8. Schiller admitted that he
15utilized Kardashian to gain access to defense team members. Gross Dec. ¶ 14(e) & Ex. J.
16Schiller insinuated himself into a position of trust and confidence with Simpson, by assisting the
17criminal defense team on a number of matters, such as obtaining clean audio copies of tape recordings
18of interviews with key witness Mark Fuhrman; assisting Simpson during the trial in writing a book, I
19Want to Tell You; convincing Simpson that Schiller should co-author Simpson’s first-person account
20of the trial; signing an agreement concerning this book that he would keep confidential all interviews
21arranged by Simpson, and giving Simpson the right to change or delete any material in the final
22manuscript; and after Simpson’s acquittal, assisting Simpson in producing a video about the case and
23assisted in raising funds. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 8-9, 11 & Ex. B; Douglas Dec. ¶ 9. Schiller since admitted
24that he took these actions for exploitation, to manipulate and ingratiate himself with Simpson and the
25defense team and to gain access, “keeping his eye on the prize.” Gross Dec. ¶¶ 10(b), 11(b), 12, 17(b)-
26(d), 19 & Exs. F-H, M, O.
27In November 1995, Kardashian informed Simpson that his publisher, Random House, to
28approve Kardashian’s book deal, needed a letter from Simpson, and sent a draft letter that would have
2
1granted an explicit waiver by Simpson of his privilege as to any communications between Simpson and
2Kardashian. Simpson refused to sign, as he was not willing to waive his privileges. Kardashian
3negotiated with Simpson’s attorneys and finally obtained a letter that did not authorize any waiver that
4he said would be acceptable to his publisher. Thereafter, Kardashian made repeated representations
5that he was writing a book with Schiller and would submit any manuscript for review, and never, until
6the impending publication of the book, stated anything otherwise. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 14-22, 28-29 &
7Exs. D-I; Taft Dec. ¶¶ 5-14 & Exs. B-G; Neufeld Dec. ¶ 8; Douglas Dec. ¶ 4; Scheck Dec. ¶ 6.
8In late 1995 and early 1996, Schiller spoke to Simpson, stating that some lawyerson the defense
9team would not speak to him, and requesting that Simpson give these lawyers permission to speak to
10Schiller. Schiller explicitly represented and agreed that the interviews were for Kardashian’s book, that
11everything the other attorneys would say to him would be protected and not disclosed due to
12Kardashian’s responsibilities as Simpson’s lawyer, that no privileged or confidentialinformation would
13be published unless Simpson gave explicit approval, and that prior to dissemination he and Kardashian
14would submit any manuscript to Simpson for his review. In light of these representations, Simpson
15agreed to give members of his defense team permission to speak to Schiller, and thereafter complied
16with his obligations. Simpson never gave any attorney permission to disclose confidential or privileged
17information to Schiller. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 23-27.
18Schiller admits that he interviewed eight attorneys on Simpson’s defense team, other than
19Kardashian. Gross Dec. ¶ 13(c) & Ex. I. All eight attorneys state that Schiller made agreements with
20them, in exchange for their agreeing to be interviewed, that the interviews were for a book he was co-
21authoring with Kardashian, and that he would submit any manuscript to Simpson for review and
22removal of any privileged or confidential information. Kardashian made similar representations. If
23Kardashian had not been a co-author of the book and if Schiller and Kardashian had not made such
24representations, these attorneys would not have agreed to be interviewed. Dershowitz Dec. ¶¶ 5-9;
25Scheck Dec. ¶¶ 5-11; Chapman Dec. ¶¶ 4, 6; Douglas Dec. ¶¶ 4-10; Blasier Dec. ¶¶ 4-6; Thompson
26Dec. ¶¶ 4-8; Bailey Dec. ¶¶ 6-11; Craig Dec. ¶¶ 3-4.
27In August 1996, when Simpson’s attorney learned that Kardashian’s book was nearing
28completion, he contacted both Kardashian and Schiller to obtain a copy. Both Schiller and Kardashian
3
confirmed to him and Simpson that the manuscript would be submitted to Simpson, and Schiller made arrangements with Simpson’s lawyers to review the manuscript. Neufeld Dec. ¶¶ 9-18 & Exs. B-C; Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 30-31. Shortly thereafter, Schiller stated for the first time that Random House was deciding whether to list Kardashian as an author, and subsequently that he was the sole author of the book. Simpson’s attorney was then informed that Random House refused to allow Schiller to submit the manuscript for review. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 32-33; Neufeld Dec. ¶¶ 11, 12, 19. Simpson’s attorney sent a cease and desist letter to RandomHouse and Schiller’s attorney, informing them that publication of the book would breach fiduciary duties and contracts and was based on fraudulent conduct and would subject them to liability. Neufeld Dec. ¶¶ 20-21 & Exs. D-E.1/
In October 1996, Schiller published a book entitled American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the Simpson Defense (the “Book”). Schiller is listed as an author; Kardashian is not. Neither Schiller nor Kardashian submitted a draft of the manuscript of the Book to Simpson for review prior to publication. Neufeld Dec. ¶¶ 22-23; Simpson Dec. ¶ 34; Gross Dec. ¶ 13(a) & Ex. I.
The Book contains a substantial amount of information that Schiller admits is privileged and confidential client information, available only to members of Simpson’s defense team. Gross Dec. ¶¶ 9(b), 10(a), 11(a), 13(b) & Exs. E-G, I. The book jacket describes the Book as: “the untold story . .
.written from deep within the Simpson defense . . . recounted in authentic, often startling detail in the words of Simpson’s confidants, lawyers, special investigators, and expert witnesses . . . in the uncensored words of Simpson’s closest confidants and attorneys.” Schiller concedes, both in the Book and in subsequent interviews, that Kardashian was the source of a large portion of the purported privileged and confidential client information contained in the Book. Neufeld Dec. ¶¶ 24-25 & Ex. G; Gross Dec. ¶¶ 9(e), 10(e), 11(c), 13(b), 14(a) & Exs. E-G, I-J, L. Schiller admitted to several of Simpson’s attorneys that Kardashian provided such information to him. Dershowitz Dec. ¶ 10; Scheck Dec. ¶ 10; Blasier Dec. ¶ 7. Kardashian received compensation for his participation in the Book and promoted it. Gross Dec. ¶¶ 9(d), 14(b), 20 & Exs. E, J, P-Q. Schiller concedes he was writing a book with Kardashian. Gross Dec. ¶¶ 9(a), 14(f) & Exs. E, J.
1/
Whenthe Book was published, Simpson was involved in a civil trial brought by members of the Goldman
and Brown families, and due to the financial and time pressures from that trial, was unable to bring a lawsuit to seek an injunction preventing the publication of the Book. Simpson Dec. ¶ 36.
1The StateBar ofCalifornia determined that Kardashiancommitted professionalmisconduct and
2violated Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e), suspending him for two years, based upon a stipulation by
3Kardashian. Neufeld Dec. ¶ 26 & Ex. H.
4In mid-May 2000, Simpson learned for the first time that Schiller was in the process of making
5a miniseries concerning Simpson’s trial, based on the information that Schiller had obtained while
6writing a book with Kardashian, and that Schiller was producing and directing. Simpson diligently
7acted to retain counsel in this matter and to bring this lawsuit. Simpson Dec. ¶¶ 37, 39.
8The screenplay for the Miniseries contains a substantial amount of information that purports to
9be privileged and confidential client information, i.e., conversations involving only counsel and
10Simpson, conversations involving only defense team members, and comments by counsel on defense
11strategy (approximately 152 pages out of a total of 193 pages). In addition, the Miniseries includes a
12large amount of such information that was not published in the Book (approximately 47 pages out of
13a total of 193 pages). Gross Dec. ¶¶ 6-7 & Ex. D; Sealed Belsky Dec. Ex. A. Last month, Simpson’s
14counsel sent letters to Schiller demanding that he cease and desist from any involvement with the
15Miniseries and requesting a copy of the screenplay for pre-publication review by Simpson. Schiller’s
16counsel responded that Schiller would not do so. Gross Dec. ¶¶ 3-5 & Exs. A-C. The Book was
17published to a limited audience; in contrast, the Miniseries is to be broadcast nationally by CBS
18Television in November, and will be seen by millions of viewers. Gross Dec. ¶¶ 22-23 & Exs. S, T.
ARGUMENT
20I. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE
21In determining whether to issue a preliminaryinjunction, a court must weigh two “interrelated”
22factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits at trial; and (2) the relative interim
23harm that the plaintiff will likely suffer if an injunction is not issued compared to the likely interim harm
24to defendant if an injunction is issued. Butt v. State, 4 Cal. 4th 668, 677-78 (1992). “[T]he greater the
25plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” Id. at 678.
26Here, injunctive relief enjoining the dissemination of the Miniseries is essential, because once
27disseminated it will be impossible to undo the disclosures. See Point III, infra.
II.SIMPSON HAS SHOWN A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS.
A.The Miniseries Consists Predominantly of Presumptively Privileged and Confidential Attorney-Client Communications or Defense Team Discussions
It cannot be disputed that the screenplay for the Miniseries is predominantly comprised of scenes that are purported to be conversations between Simpson and his attorneys, discussions between and among attorneys representing Simpson, and Simpson’s attorneys commenting in present time on defense strategy; in fact, these scenes are found on approximately 152 pages out of a total 193 pages in the screenplay. All of these scenes thus involve privileged and confidential client information. See, e.g., Cal. Evid. Code §§ 952, 954; City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 2d 227, 236-37 (1951). Schiller admitted to members of the defense team that Kardashian was the source of privileged and confidential information, and admitted in interviews that Kardashian was his primary source. He trumpets in the Book and interviews that his sources are Simpson’s attorneys, proclaiming that the Book is based on the “uncensored words of Simpson’s . . . attorneys” and was “written from deep within the Simpson defense . . . in the words of . . . Simpson’s lawyers, special investigators and expert witnesses.” Statement of Facts at 4.2/ Since Simpson has not waived his right to the confidentiality, these discussions are presumptively privileged and confidential. Bus. & Prof. Code
§6068(e); Evid. Code § 917; De Los Santos v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 3d 677, 682 (1980). This type of information would lose its privileged and confidential nature only if defendants had properly and lawfully obtained the information. However, as demonstrated below, Simpson is likely to succeed in establishing that defendants obtained this information improperly and unlawfully by breaching confidentiality agreements and fiduciary duties.
B.Simpson Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His Claim for Conspiracy to Breach Kardashian’s Fiduciary Duties.
The evidence submitted demonstrates that, from the beginning of Kardashian’s representation, Schiller and he conspired to breach fiduciaryduties. The fiduciaryattorney and client relationship is “of
2/
Schiller contends that the information in the Book and Miniseries is accurate and factual, Gross Dec.
¶18 & Ex. N, including the information which is purported to be of privileged and confidential communications. Thus, plaintiff need not demonstrate, or even claim, that the information contained in the Miniseries disclosed by his attorney is true and accurate, since an attorney violates his duty of loyalty simply by commenting on information concerning the attorney-client relationship, even if such comments are not true. See Part II.B., infra. In fact, some purported confidential client information is inaccurate. Thompson Dec. ¶ 9.
1the very highest character.” Lee v. State Bar, 2 Cal.3d 927, 939 (1970). “One of the principal
2obligations which bind an attorney is that of fidelity, the maintaining inviolate the confidence reposed
3in him . . . and at every peril to himself to preserve the secrets of his client.” Flatt v. Superior Court,
49 Cal. 4th 275, 289 (1994). See also Barber v. Municipal Court, 24 Cal. 3d 742, 750-51 (1979) (the
5fundamental right to counsel “embodies the right to communicate in absolute privacy with one’s
6attorney”); In re Jordan, 7 Cal. 3d 930, 940-41 (1972) (“protection of confidences and secrets is not
7a rule of mere professional conduct, but instead involves public policies of paramount importance”);
8Alkow v. State Bar, 3 Cal. 3d 924, 936 (1971). As the Supreme Court recently reemphasized:
9Attorneys have a duty to maintain undivided loyaltyto their clients to avoid undermining public
confidence in the legal profession and the judicial process. The effective functioning of the
10fiduciary relationship between attorney and client depends on the client’s trust and confidence in counsel. The courts will protect clients’ legitimate expectations of loyalty to preserve this
11essential basis for trust and security in the attorney-client relationship.
12People ex rel. Dept. of Corp. v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1146-47 (1999).
13Under California law, an attorneyhas an express statutoryduty, broader than the attorney-client
14privilege, “[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the
15secrets, of his or her client.” Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e); Goldstein v. Lees, 46 Cal. App. 3d 614, 621
16& n.5 (1975). “The attorney’s lips are forever sealed” as to information gained during the attorney-
17client relationship. Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo, 121 Cal.App.2d 616, 625 (1953).
18Here, there is substantial evidence that Kardashian breached his fiduciary duties to Simpson.
19The State Bar of California recently determined that Kardashian violated Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e).
20Kardashian is the primary source of the information in the Book and Miniseries concerning attorney-
21client conversations and defense team discussions. Kardashian induced other Simpson attorneys to
22provide information to Schiller by representing that he was the co-author of the book and that any
23manuscript would be submitted to Simpson’s attorney for review. Kardashian received compensation
24for his participation in the Book and promoted the Book. See Statement of Facts.
25Schiller and Project 95 are jointly liable for Kardashian’s breaches. A person who “intentionally
26causes or assists an agent to violate a duty to his principal is subject to liability to the principal.”
27Restatement (Second) of Agency § 312 (1958). Numerous California cases have applied this principle.
28Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. Glen, 64 Cal. 2d 327, 353 (1966) (parties who cooperated in another’s breach
1offiduciaryduties liable for their participation); Pierce v. Lyman, 1 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1104-06 (1991);
2Certified Grocers of Calif., Ltd. v. San Gabriel Valley Bank, 150 Cal. App. 3d 281, 289 (1983);
3Morales v. Field, DeGoff, Huppert & MacGowan, 99 Cal. App. 3d 307, 314-15 (1979); St. James
4Armenian Church of Los Angeles v. Kurkjian, 47 Cal. App. 3d 547, 552 (1975); Gray v. Sutherland,
5124 Cal. App. 2d 280, 290 (1954); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 312, comment c (1958) (“A
6person who, with notice that an agent is thereby violating his dutyto his principal, receives confidential
7information from the agent, may be enjoined from disclosing it”).
8The evidence is equally clear that Schiller induced, participated in, and reaped the benefit of
9Kardashian’s breach offiduciaryduties. Schiller encouraged Kardashian from the start of Kardashian’s
representation to surreptitiously take notes and tape record events for use in a book, encouraged
Kardashian to represent that he was writing a book with Schiller, induced Kardashian to disclose
privileged and confidential client information to him, and represented to Simpson and Simpson’s
attorneys that the interviews he was conducting were for a book with Kardashian and that due to
Kardashian’s fiduciary duties no privileged or confidential could be contained in any publication. The
Book, and the Miniseries, are based primarily on informationimproperly obtained fromKardashian. See
Statement of Facts.
C.
Simpson Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His Claims for Breaches
of Schiller’s Contracts With Him and With His Attorneys
Schiller entered into an oral agreement with Simpson, by promising to submit any manuscript
from his interviews of Simpson’s defense team members to Simpson for pre-publication review and
removal of any privileged or confidential information, in return for Simpson providing access to
members of the defense team. Schiller breached this agreement, by refusing to submit the manuscript
of the Book or the manuscript for the Miniseries to Simpson for pre-publication review. See Statement
of Facts at 3-5. Any claim by Schiller that no such contract exists is belied by the declaration testimony
to the contrary of all eight prominent members of the bar who Schiller interviewed.
Simpson is equally likely to prevail on claim as third party beneficiary for breach of Schiller’s
contracts with members of defense team. See generally Civ. Code § 1559 (“[a] contract, made
expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him”); 1 Witkin, Summary of Calif. Law
(Contracts) § 656, at 595 (9th ed. 1987). Schiller breached oral agreements with all eight of Simpson’s
lawyers he interviewed that he would submit any manuscript concerning the interviews to Simpson for prepublication review and removal of any privileged and confidential information. See Statement of Facts at 3. These agreements clearly were for the benefit of Simpson as a third party beneficiary.
D.Simpson Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His Claim for Fraud.
As discussed above, the evidence demonstrates that: Schiller and Kardashian made numerous fraudulent representations to Simpson and members of his defense team that they were co-authoring a book, that no privileged and confidential information would be contained in any manuscript without Simpson’s approval, and that any manuscript would be submitted to Simpson for review and deletion of privileged and confidential information; Simpson and members of his defense team relied on these representations and provided access and information to Schiller; these representations were false; and Schiller and Kardashian knew them to be false and made them to induce Simpson and his agents to rely on them. Thus, Simpson is likely to succeed on his claim against defendants for fraud.3/
E.Simpson Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of
His Claim for Breach of Schiller’s Fiduciary Duties.
Schiller also owed a separate fiduciary duty directly to Simpson by reason of their special relationship, which he also breached. “One who voluntarily assumes a position of trust and confidence is a fiduciary, and he remains a fiduciary as long as trust and confidence are reposed in him.” Sime v. Malouf, 95 Cal. App. 2d 82, 98 (1949); see also Tri-Growth Centre City, Ltd. v. Silldorf, Burdman, Duignan & Eisenberg, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1139, 1150 (1989); Pryor v. Bistline, 215 Cal. App. 2d 437, 446 (1963). “The very existence of such a relation precludes the party in whom the trust and confidence is reposed fromparticipating in profit or advantage resulting fromthe dealings of the parties to the relation.” Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 262 Cal. App. 2d 690, 708 (1968). The facts demonstrate that Schiller had insinuated himself into a position of trust and confidence with Simpson and should be held to the standard of fiduciary for his betrayal of that confidence. See Statement of Facts at 2-3.
3/
Simpson’s cause of action for fraud, with a three-year statute of limitations, CCP § 338(d), is not time-
barred, since the fraudulent conspiracy continues until the present. An action for civil conspiracy only accrues when the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs. Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co., 24 Cal. 3d 773, 786-88 (1979). Defendants are currently taking actions to produceand direct the Miniseries based on information obtained through the above-described fraudulent scheme in order to gain further profits from their fraud, and continue in their refusal to submit the manuscript for the Miniseries to Simpson for review.
After completing the Points and Authorities form, the next critical step involves submission to the corresponding court and ensuring all procedural guidelines are adhered to. Careful attention to detail is imperative, as this document outlines the legal arguments and supporting evidence for a client's motion or application. Once filed, this formally requests the court to consider the legal basis and facts presented to make a ruling. Understanding and correctly executing the requirements for this form can significantly influence the outcome of the application or motion being proposed.
Accurately completing and submitting the Points and Authorities form is pivotal in advancing the legal action sought. It articulates the legal framework and factual underpinning supporting the client's position, aiming to persuade the court of the merits of the case. This process underscores the role of thorough preparation and precision in legal advocacies.
What is a Points and Authorities form?
A Points and Authorities form is a legal document that attorneys use to outline the legal reasons, including statutes and case law, supporting their motions or applications in court. It essentially tells the court why, under existing law, the court should grant the request being made.
Why do lawyers submit Points and Authorities?
Lawyers submit Points and Authorities to provide a foundation for their arguments, showing the court that their requests are not only reasonable but also supported by law. This methodical approach helps judges to make informed decisions based on precedent and statutory law.
Can anyone file a Points and Authorities form?
While theoretically, anyone can file such a document if they are representing themselves in court (pro se), crafting effective Points and Authorities requires a deep understanding of legal principles and the ability to apply those principles to the facts of one's case. Thus, it is most commonly and effectively done by trained legal professionals.
What should be included in a Points and Authorities form?
A proper Points and Authorities form includes a clear statement of the legal issues, a concise argument presenting the legal rationale, and most importantly, references to statutes, regulations, and previous court decisions (case law) that support the argument. It may also include relevant factual summaries as they apply to the law.
How do Points and Authorities differ from other legal documents?
Different from mere pleadings that state what each party claims or disputes, Points and Authorities are specifically tailored to argue why the court should make a particular legal decision. They are rooted in researched law and are designed to persuade through logic and legal precedent.
In what types of legal proceedings are Points and Authorities used?
They are used in numerous legal proceedings, including but not limited to motions for summary judgment, motions to dismiss, applications for restraining orders, and more. Any time a lawyer needs to formally ask the court to make a decision, Points and Authorities are likely involved.
Are Points and Authorities mandatory for all motions?
While not all jurisdictions require them for every motion, they are critical for most contested issues. Even when not mandatory, they are highly advisable as they help to clearly communicate the legal basis of one's position to the court.
How can Points and Authorities impact the outcome of a case?
Well-prepared Points and Authorities can significantly influence a judge's decision by clearly articulating the legal precedents and statutes that support the motion. They offer a roadmap of the legal landscape related to the case, potentially swaying the outcome in the presenter's favor.
What happens if the Points and Authorities are not well-prepared?
A poorly prepared document can undermine the persuasiveness of one's argument, potentially leading to the denial of the motion. It may also leave the court with a poor impression of the party’s legal positioning or understanding, impacting future proceedings.
Can the content of Points and Authorities be disputed?
Yes, the opposing side has the opportunity to contest the Points and Authorities by filing their own legal documents in response, challenging the cited laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the applicability of cited case law to the facts of the current case.
When filling out the Points and Authorities form, a common mistake people make is not double-checking the accuracy of attorney and law firm details. For instance, the form lists "Terry Gross (103878) Adam C. Belsky (147800) GROSS & BELSKY LLP One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1040 San Francisco, California 94111." Details like attorney names, law firm names, addresses, and phone numbers are crucial and should mirror what's officially on record. Misspellings or incorrect information can confuse court staff and potentially delay proceedings. Diligence in verifying these details can avoid unnecessary setbacks.
Another frequent error involves the case number and court-related specifics. The template shows "Case No. __________" followed by court and jurisdiction information, "SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES UNLIMITED JURISDICTION." It's imperative to fill in the case number field accurately. Leaving it blank or mistyping it can result in your document being misfiled or returned. Always confirm the court's name and jurisdiction to ensure your document reaches the right destination, especially in cases involving multiple jurisdictions or transfers between courts.
People often overlook the importance of the document's title and purpose capture. The example provided clearly states, "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION." This section should be meticulously tailored to the case's specifics. Using a generic title or one that does not accurately reflect the document's unique purpose might lead to confusion or misinterpretation by the reviewing authority. Tailoring this section ensures the document is correctly associated with its intended legal action.
The details within the "STATEMENT OF FACTS" and subsequent arguments, such as those involving communications among O.J. Simpson, Kardashian, and Schiller, highlight another error: the failure to clearly separate facts from arguments. It is vital to present factual information in a straightforward manner before delving into legal arguments or analyses. Muddling facts with legal arguments can weaken the document's persuasive power and clarity. Establishing a clear division helps the court to easily understand the case's foundation before considering the legal implications and arguments presented.
When preparing for legal proceedings, the Points and Authorities form is crucial, but it's often just one piece of a larger puzzle. Several other forms and documents complement it, each serving a specific purpose in building a strong case or legal argument. Understanding these additional documents can make the legal process smoother and more straightforward.
Together with the Points and Authorities, these documents form the backbone of legal filings in civil litigation. They ensure that the court is well informed of the facts, the legal arguments, and the procedural steps the parties are taking. By comprehensively preparing and submitting these forms and documents, parties can navigate the complexities of legal disputes with clarity and precision.
One document similar to the Points And Authorities form is the Complaint. A Complaint initiates legal action by outlining the plaintiff's allegations against the defendant(s) and the legal justification for the lawsuit. Just as the Points And Authorities elaborate on the legal basis and precedents supporting a motion, a Complaint details the factual and legal grounds of the plaintiff's claims. Both serve to inform the court and the opposing party of the core arguments and legal theories at play, though their specific purposes within the legal process differ.
The Declaration is another document bearing resemblance to the Points And Authorities. Declarations are written statements made under oath, providing first-hand accounts or evidence to support motions or pleadings such as a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. While Declarations offer factual evidence and personal attestations, the Points And Authorities provide the legal backbone, citing statutes, case law, and legal principles that justify the motion's arguments, thus working in tandem to bolster the moving party's position.
The Brief is akin to the Points And Authorities, serving a similar function in appellate proceedings. Briefs are comprehensive documents submitted in appellate courts, presenting arguments, legal theories, and citations to authority to persuade the court on a matter under appeal. Like Points And Authorities, Briefs are critical in shaping the legal debate; however, Briefs are tailored to appellate review, focusing on errors in the trial court's application of law or procedural missteps, while Points And Authorities might support original motions in trial court proceedings.
The Summary Judgment Motion often comes accompanied by a supporting document similar to the Points And Authorities form. In a Summary Judgment Motion, one party asks the court to decide the case (or specific parts of it) based on the legal arguments and evidentiary documents presented, claiming there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. The accompanying document outlines the legal basis, much like Points And Authorities, elucidating the rationale for why the court should grant judgment, emphasizing legal standards and precedents.
The Answer, while serving as a direct response to a Complaint, similarly engages with legal and factual assertions to fashion a defense. It addresses each allegation, admitting, denying, or claiming insufficient knowledge to admit or deny, the plaintiff’s assertions. The Answer might also raise affirmative defenses, which, much like the legal arguments advanced in Points And Authorities, lean on legal doctrine and precedent to underpin the defendant's position, albeit structured differently to counter the plaintiff’s claims.
An Injunction Request, seeking a court order to compel or prevent specific actions by a party, often necessitates an accompanying Points And Authorities. This legal document lays out the legal foundation and precedents for granting such an order, paralleling the Points And Authorities' function of detailing legal argumentation to justify a proposed court action. Although tailored to the specific relief of enjoining behavior, both share the goal of persuading the court based on legal precedents and statutory grounds.
The Discovery Request documents, while primarily procedural, seeking information or documents from the opposing party, may also relate to the Points And Authorities form. Points And Authorities may accompany motions to compel discovery or oppose protective orders, offering legal justification for why the court should grant or deny such discovery requests. In these instances, legal argumentation, grounded in relevant rules and case law, plays a crucial role in guiding the court's decision-making process regarding evidence gathering.
Lastly, the Settlement Agreement, though distinct in its aim to resolve disputes outside of court judgment, intersects with the Points And Authorities in its reliance on legal principles to frame the terms of settlement. While not a court-filed document like Points And Authorities, it is structured around legal understandings, rights, and obligations derived from the underlying dispute’s legal context, illustrating how legal arguments inform agreements reached by disputing parties.
When completing a Points and Authorities form, adherence to both format and content requirements is crucial. This guide outlines the do's and don'ts that should be considered to ensure the submission is appropriately prepared and received.
Do:
Don't:
Understanding legal documents and court filings, such as the Points and Authorities form, can be daunting. However, demystifying some common misconceptions about Points and Authorities can make them more approachable for everyone. Here are six common misconceptions, corrected for clarity:
Dispelling these misconceptions is vital in understanding the legal process and appreciating the role that well-drafted Points and Authorities play in the success or failure of legal motions and, ultimately, in the outcomes of legal disputes.
Filling out and using the Points and Authorities form requires a meticulous approach to ensure that the legal arguments made are well-supported and clearly communicated. Here are four key takeaways for legal practitioners to consider:
Robust Documentation and Articulation of Legal Principles: The Points and Authorities form is designed to condense and convey the legal arguments that support a case. It is essential for the person filling out the form to robustly document and articulate the underlying legal principles and statutes that buttress their argument. This might include precedents, statutes, or other relevant legal texts.
Clarity and Precision in Presenting Facts: The effectiveness of the Points and Authorities form hinges on the clarity and precision with which facts are presented. It is important to meticulously detail the facts of the case, ensuring they are directly linked to the legal arguments being made. Any omission or ambiguity in fact presentation can weaken the overall argument.
Fiduciary Duties and Confidentiality Agreements: As underscored in the example, the form can be a critical tool in arguing breaches of fiduciary duties and confidentiality agreements. The detailed enumeration of such breaches, supported by factual evidence and legal statutes, can significantly bolster the case being presented.
Strategic Use in Litigation: The Points and Authorities form is not just a procedural document but a strategic tool that can influence the course of litigation. Its use in motions for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, for example, necessitates a strategic approach to how information is presented and argued. This strategic element emphasizes not only the content of the form but the manner in which arguments are constructed and supported.
In conclusion, the Points and Authorities form is a vital part of legal documentation that requires careful consideration of legal principles, factual accuracy, strategic argument construction, and the clarity of presentation. Legal practitioners must approach this document with a comprehensive understanding of their case and the legal landscape to effectively use it to support their position.
Basic Template Printable Employee Information Form - Applicants have the opportunity to list any languages they can speak, read, or write, highlighting potential communication skills.
How to File a Claim of Exemption Wage Garnishment - Designed to protect an employee’s earnings needed for basic living expenses against court-ordered garnishment.