ashleygjovik ,
@ashleygjovik@mastodon.social avatar

🧵 In Apple's recent flurry of frivolous motions in the civil lawsuit, Apple motioned for something so bizarre that I could not find any legal or factual precedent for it. found a copy of my complaint (filed to the SEC about Apple) & Apple tried to request Judicial Notice of it for Apple's defense, despite not being a party to it & that also not being how judicial notice works.

bout you Submitter # 1 Q: Are you filing this tip under the SEC's whistleblower program? A: Yes Q: Are you an attorney filling out this form on behalf of an anonymous whistleblower client who is seeking an award? A: No Q: First Name A: Ashley Q: Middle Name A: Marie Q: Last Name A: Gjovik
complaint cover page

ashleygjovik OP ,
@ashleygjovik@mastodon.social avatar

The only legal authority Apple cited as a basis for doing this was "Civil Minutes" from an unpublished "In Chambers Order" but even that case was about a SEC complaint that was the SEC suing one of the parties, not a 'confidential' whistleblower tip the other side wasn't party to

image/png
image/png

ALT
  • Reply
  • Loading...
  • ashleygjovik OP ,
    @ashleygjovik@mastodon.social avatar

    Apple can't get judicial notice for my complaint because Apple cannot authenticate it, because Apple wasn't party to it nor did Apple request an affidavit from me about it.

    In addition, there's much case law explaining the Defendant can't judicial notice stuff to simply build a defense for a motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's complaint.

    image/png
    image/png

    ashleygjovik OP ,
    @ashleygjovik@mastodon.social avatar

    After I responded to Apple's motion with actual facts & law, Apple replied via its motions for judicial notice & motion to dismiss, now belligerently insisting that I must prove my SEC complaint is "protected activity", and claiming that I 'understand' its 'not' protected activity because I refused to bicker with Apple substantively point by point on a frivolous motion that was clearly only meant to harass me.

    So... things are going great over here.

    Plaintiff presumably understands that her SEC Submission does not qualify as protected activity under SOX or Dodd-Frank; otherwise, Plaintiff would likely not have opposed the request and would have instead used her Opposition to highlight the portions of her SEC Submission that she believes support a claim.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • kamenrider
  • Rutgers
  • loren
  • Lexington
  • cragsand
  • mead
  • RetroGamingNetwork
  • mauerstrassenwetten
  • MidnightClan
  • xyz
  • PowerRangers
  • AnarchoCapitalism
  • WatchParties
  • itdept
  • Mordhau
  • neondivide
  • AgeRegression
  • Teensy
  • WarhammerFantasy
  • space_engine
  • learnviet
  • bjj
  • electropalaeography
  • steinbach
  • khanate
  • jeremy
  • supersentai
  • fandic
  • All magazines