MuseOn Live Court Trials

Isaiah Chance, Sean Gathright, Rashad Murphy, and Davion Murphy are on trial for the murder of Jacksonville rapper Julio Foolio, who was shot and killed in a Tampa, Florida, hotel parking lot on June 23, 2024. WATCH LIVE: bit.ly/4tlmVHz

“It’s kill an (N-word) day in Canton today.” - Michael Proctor We just learned Michael Proctor sent this text message to other troopers while working under candidate Greg Connor’s DAs office. #KarenRead #FreeTurtleboy

The #SummerHouse Reunion Seating Chart is finally here and Ciara is first chair!!

TAG’S REPLY TO BL’S OPPOSITION TO THE RENEWED MSJ Reply brief by The Agency Group PR LLC (TAG) urging summary judgment to dismiss @blakelively (BL)’s aiding-and-abetting FEHA retaliation claim. 1️⃣ WHAT TAG IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE (AND WHY) What: TAG files a reply to BL's shit supporting its summary judgment motion directed at BL’s Seventh Cause of Action: aiding and abetting retaliation in violation of California FEHA. Why the reply is “renewed”: TAG says Judge Liman previously authorised a renewed summary-judgment presentation to address a specific question: “whether aiding and abetting liability might apply to business-entity agents.” 2️⃣ TAG’S CORE THEORY: DIRECT-LIABILITY CONSTRAINS AIDER-AND-ABETTOR LIABILITY TAG’s central theory is to treat the Seventh Cause of Action (aiding/abetting) as constrained by principles developed in direct FEHA liability cases. TAG cites Judge Liman’s prior statement that there is “at least some reason to believe” aider-and-abettor liability could apply to business-entity agents because the California Supreme Court treated direct and aiding-and-abetting issues similarly in Reno—and that the parties had not briefed that issue at length. TAG claims it is simply responding to that invitation: if direct liability has a predicate requirement—engagement in FEHA-regulated activities—and California treats the questions similarly, then aiding-and-abetting should not reach TAG absent FEHA-regulated conduct by TAG. 3️⃣ THE “FEHA-REGULATED ACTIVITIES” TAG’s reply focuses heavily on the concept of FEHA-regulated activities: — TAG states flatly it “did not engage in any FEHA-regulated activities regarding BL.” — TAG invokes Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Group for the proposition that, at a necessary minimum, a business-entity agent bears direct FEHA liability only when it carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer. TAG then counters BL’s 🗑️shortcut: — BL’s position is that even if the “FEHA-regulated activities” limitation applies, TAG is still liable because the retaliatory adverse employment actions that TAG “assisted” are themselves FEHA-regulated. — TAG’s rebuttal is that the focus must be on what TAG did (i.e., whether TAG itself carried out FEHA-regulated activities), not merely on whether the underlying employer’s conduct was FEHA-regulated. 4️⃣ TAG’S ATTACK ON BL’S “TAG IS AN EMPLOYER” ARGUMENT (PLEADINGS-BASED) The best argument from TAG that BL is shifting positions: — TAG calls BL’s employer argument a “legal Hail Mary,” claiming BL now asserts it is “undisputed” TAG meets FEHA’s definition of employer. — TAG responds that BL’s Second Amended Complaint alleged only Wayfarer Studios LLC and It Ends With Us Movie LLC were her FEHA employers—and expressly alleged TAG is not her employer “under FEHA (or in any other context).” 5️⃣ TAG’S “THE COURT ALREADY DECIDED THIS” REBUTTAL TAG disputes BL’s claim that the court already found TAG’s conduct “FEHA-regulated”: — TAG says that is “blatantly incorrect” because the court withheld judgment on whether TAG might be liable for aiding-and-abetting FEHA retaliation and denied summary judgment without prejudice, implying the issue remains open. 6️⃣ TAG’S TREATMENT OF SMITH & THE “NO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED” TAG addresses BL’s reliance on Smith v. BP Lubricants: — TAG concedes part of BL’s proposition: Smith rejected the notion that defendants must be the plaintiff’s employer to be liable under FEHA. — But TAG says Smith did not decide whether a third party provides “substantial assistance or encouragement” when it performs no employment-related functions. — TAG also emphasises that, after Smith, the California Supreme Court in Raines “express[ed] no view” on the scope of a business entity agent’s aider-and-abettor liability. 7️⃣ BL’S CITED CASES (HARPER, HOOTERS): WHAT THE FUCK TAG argues BL lacks on-point authority applying FEHA aiding-and-abetting retaliation liability to an entity that did not engage in employment-related activities: — TAG asserts BL cites no case where an entity was liable (or potentially liable) for FEHA aiding-and-abetting retaliation without engaging in any employment-related activities. “Notably, Lively does not cite a single case, from any jurisdiction, in which an entity was deemed to be liable (or potentially liable) for aiding and abetting alleged retaliation under FEHA without engaging in any employment-related activities. The cases cited by Lively involve entities that clearly engaged in employment-related activities, unlike the case before this Court.” 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 TAG distinguishes examples BL relies on as involving actors who did perform employment-related functions: — Harper: a background screening company allegedly controlled a threshold screening grade that affected confirmation of a conditional job offer—i.e., involvement in an employment gatekeeping function. — Hooters: alleged substantial assistance through training, policies, procedures, and administrative support designed to help co-employers avoid FEHA liability—again, operational involvement in employment practices. 8️⃣ TAG’S CLARIFICATION ON “WE DIDN’T DISPUTE KNOWLEDGE/SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE” (AND WHY) BL argues TAG’s renewed motion “does not dispute” knowing and substantial assistance. TAG answers: — TAG reiterates it confined its renewed motion to the court-identified issue and did not treat the renewal as license to raise anything. — TAG then states for clarity it denies participating in any conduct actionable under FEHA and asserts BL has produced no evidence to the contrary; if motions are denied, TAG will prove at trial the aiding-and-abetting claim lacks merit. “… for the purposes of clarity, TAG denies that it participated in any conduct that is actionable under FEHA. In addition, Lively has presented no evidence to the contrary. If TAG’s renewed motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings are both denied, TAG will demonstrate at trial that Lively’s claim for aiding and abetting lacks merit.” 9️⃣ WHAT TAG ULTIMATELY ASKS THE COURT TO DO TAG asks the court to grant summary judgment in its favour on BL’s Seventh Cause of Action for aiding-and-abetting retaliation under FEHA. #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni

West Wilson, Amanda Batula and rest of ‘Summer House’ cast arrives for Season 10 reunion on heels of romance bombshell trib.al/rXdVzww