With extensions granted and apparent problems with settlement terms agreed to, the late Anna Nicole Smith’s attorney Howard K. Stern has settled his defamation lawsuit against Houston Texas attorney John O’Quinn.

O’Quinn represents the late Anna Nicole Smith’s mother, Virgie Arthur. During and after hearings in Florida to decide Anna Nicole’s final resting place, O’Quinn went on various television shows and implied that Stern was responsible for the death of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.

A prior announcement one month ago on October 30th, 2008 that the lawsuit was settled led to speculation that the terms may not have been too fruitful for Stern because settlement negotiations were officially postponed due to Florida Attorney Robert Klein having the flu. The negotiations did take place after all on the date that Judge Dimitrouleas had postponed. And there was no public statement from Stern.

The negotiations were allowed to continue until today, December 1st when the “Stipulation For Entry of Dismissal With Prejudice” and “Final Order of Dismissal” was filed.

The only terms revealed are that certain pages of a deposition given by O’Quinn investigator and consultant Don Clark dated October 14th, 2008, will no longer be confidential. The terms of the settlement are “strictly confidential” and neither party is permitted to comment except to say “the matter has been amicably resolved”.

120108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_248_settled.pdf
120108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_249_settled.pdf

Sort of but not really.

This dispute concerns the personal papers and photographs of Coretta Scot King who died in 2006. Two of the children of the late Dr. Martin Luther King and his wife Coretta are refusing to provide a biographer with those materials saying their mother did not want author Barbara Reynolds to write a biography about her. The third sibling, Dexter King who is the executor of his fathers estate says his siblings, the Rev. Bernice King and Martin Luther King III and his mother signed control of their intellectual property over to their father’s estate.

Attorneys for both sides say money is the main dispute but they differ on who is to blame for the problems.

For the full story, read the New York Times recent article concerning the controversy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/books/14bio.htmlколи под наем

As of the date of publication of this article, another client of Wood’s, Howard K. Stern had tentatively settled his defamation lawsuit against Houston Texas Attorney John O’Quinn. O’Quinn suggested on nation television that Stern was responsible for the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Smith. However no settlement papers have been filed in the Florida Southern District Federal court.

Presiding Judge Dimitrouleas filed an order for Stern to file a joint stipulation for dismissal or show cause why a joint stipulation has not been filed on or before November 19th, 2008 leaving onlookers of the case to speculate as to why Stern has not followed through on the declared settlement.

Judge Dimitrouleas ruled today Howard K. Stern’s request for default in his defamation lawsuit against John O’Quinn is denied. The Judge citing case law said default is reserved for only the most “severe sanction” and “appropriate only as a last resort”.

In response to Stern’s accusations of “bad faith” on the part of council for O’Quinn, the Judge mentions that Stern “did not act upon the lack of responsive pleading until the Court prompted him with an Order to Show Cause”.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default (179): Denied
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (183): Denied
Defendant’s Motion for time extension (188) Granted
Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Default (187):Granted

http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/092308_Stern_vs_OQuinn_191.pdf

Interesting documents from Stern vs O’Quinn the past two days. There was a hearing on Monday September 15th. Lin Wood by letter to the Judge asked that during the hearing, Judge Rosenbaum address Wood’s complaint that some materials that were granted in the Omnibus Order from August 29th 2008 to be turned over to Stern were still being withheld.

In “Order”, numbered 180, it appears that Judge Rosenbaum examined many documents over the course of 2 and 1/2 hour hearing and determined what was missing and needed to be turned over. She also determined a host of other documents that do not need to be produced. O’Quinn has until September 17th which is tomorrow to produce the documents.

In 174, Stern applies for a default judgment. He says that O’Quinn has “failed to plead or otherwise defend”. In 176, the Clerk of Court states that O’Quinn is in default for failure to appear, answer or otherwise plead to the original complaint filed within the time required by law.

In 178, O’Quinn files his answer listing which allegations he admits to from the First Amended Complaint and which he denies and which he neither admits nor denies. There are a ton of numbers there to compare to the First Amended Complaint.

Back in document 172, Judge Dimitrouleas filed an order for Stern to show cause as to why the case “should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution”. Sterns answer is 175. In 179 Stern asks the court to enter a default judgment for him after an assessment by a jury for the tardy filing of 178.

So here are the questions that I have.

Will the Court grant Sterns request for Default?

Will Sterns arguments to “show cause” as ordered by the Court be good enough so the case is not dismissed” due to lack of prosecution”?

Will Lin Wood get a pain in the neck from having to compare all the allegation numbers 178 with the actual allegations in the First Amended Complaint to see which are affirmed and which are denied?

And here is the kicker. Both sides requested an extension for discovery and it was denied in 173. Discovery is over September 19th.

Judge Dimitrouleas however said that any discovery issues after the 19th, and that would include depositions, will not involve the Court. In other words, don’t come crying to the Court if a discovery issue arises after the 19th. The court will not be involved.

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_180.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_179.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_178.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_177.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_176.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_175.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_174.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_173.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_172.pdf

A decision was rendered today in the defamation lawsuit Howard K. Stern vs John O'Quinn on O'Quinn's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Several reasons were cited for the denial of the motion in the 17 page decision of Florida United States District Judge George Dimitrouleas. 

Read the decision. 080808_Stern_vs_OQuinn_156.pdf