Rakofsky Case: Reuters Moves To Dismiss (Updated x2)

Reuters has moved to dismiss the case that Joseph Rakofsky recently brought against 81 defendants  for defamation. I am one of the defendants, and you can read the background on the case and my response here.

Since I am also now local counsel to 35 of the defendants, I’ve elected to refrain from further commentary, though I have been publishing many of the filings here.

The Reuters motion to dismiss includes its writer Dan Slater. The motion is directed toward the merits, even though Reuters alleges a failure to properly serve the suit.

Counsel for Reuters is Mark Weissman of Herzfeld & Rubin.

This represents the sixth motion in this young case:

1.  Our motion to extend time to answer or move,  and for pro hac vice admission of Marc Randazza

2.  Kennerly Motion to dismiss

3, 4  Seddiq and Koehler motions to dismiss.

5.  Borzouye motion to withdraw as counsel for Rakofsky

The documents for the Reuters motion to dismiss:

Notice of Motion,  Mark Weissman Affidavit and Exhibits

Daniel Slater Affidavit

Reuters Memo of Law

Updated 5/24/12: Rakofsky’s Memo of Law in Opposition: Rakofsky Opp Memo Of Law

Updated 6/26/12: Reuters Reply Memo and Opposition to cross-motion to amend the amended complaint:Reply Memo-Law:Opp-x-m


2 Responses Leave a comment

  • Nancy 2011.6.27 at 10:08 | Quote

    I see that Mr. Weissman tends toward the same “take no prisoners” attitude that Mark Randazza prefers.

Comments are closed.

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.