Rakofsky Case – The Sanctions Motions (Updated)

This is an update on the matter of Rakofsky v. Internet. Your familiarity with the facts will be assumed, but if you need a primer, you can read through the various posts tagged Rakofsky. There are 13 motions to dismiss that are pending. Or you can use the Google.

As previously noted, I am both a defendant and local counsel. Since I am counsel, I won’t add substantive commentary to the filings since I don’t like to use this blog to discuss pending matters.

In November, the American Bar Association moved for sanctions. That motion is currently returnable January 17, 2013. Returnable, in this case, simply means that is the day for final submissions. There won’t be oral argument on that, or any other matter, unless the judge specifically asks for it.

This is the ABA submission and Rakofsky opposition:



Rakofsky Opposition

ABA-ReplyAffirm-Jones (added 1/16/13)

ABA-ReplyAffirm-Dale (added 1/16/13)

ABA-ReplyMemoOfLaw (added 1/16/13)

Rakofsky letter to court dated 3/13/13 and Matthew Goldsmith transmittal letter to ABA dated 3/14/13  (added 3/21/13)

ABA letter to court responding to Rakofsky, dated 3/20/13  (added 3/21/13)

Our group of 35 defendants, represented by Marc Randazza, just made our own motion, also returnable January 17th. These are the filings so far:

Turkewitz Affidavit

MemoOfLaw (Randazza)

Exhibit A – Transcript of June 28, 2012 hearing on motions to dismiss

Exhibit B – Letter Judge Hagler July 1 – Rakofsky letter explaining why negligence claim was not duplicative of defamation claim

Exhibit C January 3, 2012 order, denying plaintiffs’ motion as “incomprehensible”

Exhibit D Marc Randazza’s June 17, 2011 reply affidavit in support of his motion for pro hac vice admission and extension of time

Exhibit E The April 1, 2011 transcript in United States v. Deaner, Criminal Action No. 2008-CF1-30325 (D.C. Superior Ct.)

Exhibit F The March 31, 2011 transcript in United States v. Deaner, Criminal Action No. 2008-CF1-30325 (D.C. Superior Ct.)

Exhibit G Joseph Rakofsky’s March 31, 2011 Facebook status update, which reads “1st-Degree Murder…MISTRIAL!”

Exhibit H Redacted copy of October 6, 2010 e-mail to an investigator in the Deaner case, wherein Rakofsky uses the word “trick” (commonly referenced as the “trick e-mail”)

Exhibit I Rakofsky’s June 9, 2011 e-mail to Michael Doudna, submitted as an exhibit to Doudna’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions

Exhibit J Rakofsky web ads from Connecticut, Washington DC and New Jersey

Exhibit K – Summons and complaint; amended summons and amended complaint

March 6, 2013 Update- new filings this week


Turkewitz Reply/Opposition Affidavit

Exhibit P – Turkewitz Sur-Reply Affidavit on motion to admit Randazza pro hac vice.

Randazza Reply/Opposition Memo of Law

Minutes of April 8th Oral Argument, (added 4/22/13)

Decision and Order (April 29, 2013) (Motions to dismiss granted; motion for sanctions denied)




10 Responses Leave a comment

  • MarkL 2013.1.5 at 00:00 | Quote

    Any chance of posting the other exhibits? I think in all fairness the Rakofsky Letter should be posted, at a minimum.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2013.1.5 at 17:58 | Quote

    Any chance of posting the other exhibits?


  • MarkL 2013.1.5 at 18:02 | Quote

    Awesome. Thanks.

  • MarkL 2013.1.7 at 00:32 | Quote

    I was a bit shocked to see on p64 of the transcript that none of the applicable Ethics Committees have contacted Mr. Rakofsky.

  • Old Geezer 2013.1.10 at 15:38 | Quote

    I think Scott Turow is busy right now, and I need to start in on remodeling my kitchen, but I can start on the screenplay when I get around to it later on.

    Here is a list of possible talent. I leave the role for which each might vie to your imagination.

    Jim Carrey, Joe Pesci, Wilford Brimley, Will Ferrel, Hugh Jackman, Jack Nicholson, Johnny Knoxville. There aren’t many females from the “based on a true story” angle, so we’ll have to make up a few roles in order to attract Cate Blanchett, Scarlett Johnansson and Sigourney Weaver to the cast. It’s always nice to have attractive female actors on set.

    Gene Hackman has retired, alas. So be it.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2013.1.10 at 15:51 | Quote

    Here is a list of possible talent. I leave the role for which each might vie to your imagination.

    Too late…I apparently didn’t make trailer 1, but at least in trailer 2 I’ve got Clooney playing me…

    Trailer 1:

    Trailer 2:

  • Old Geezer 2013.1.10 at 19:26 | Quote

    Day late and a dollar short again!

    Well, I’ll have to settle for the sequel. If I can’t get Clooney, would you settle for Jeff Goldblum?

  • Elliot 2013.1.16 at 20:11 | Quote

    Has Rakofsky answered your sanctions motion?

  • MarkL 2013.1.17 at 16:24 | Quote

    @Elliot – Looks like an extension has been granted:

    Last Appearance:
    Appearance Date: 01/17/2013 — Information updated
    Appearance Time:
    On For: Motion
    Appearance Outcome: Adjourned
    Justice: HAGLER, SHLOMO S.

    Future Appearances:
    Appearance Date: 02/07/2013 — Information updated
    Appearance Time:
    On For: Motion
    Appearance Outcome:
    Justice: HAGLER, SHLOMO S.

  • MarkL 2013.1.29 at 17:09 | Quote

    It looks like we have some activity. http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha?forward_url=/webcivil/FCASSearch%3FtxtIndex%3D105573/2011%26cboCounty%3D30%26from%3DY

    A hearing is set:

    IAS MOTION 17 @ 2:15

    I must say, though, that it would take considerable effort to create a less usable and understandable system than WebCivil Supreme.

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.