Professional Documents
Culture Documents
55
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 1 of 13
ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE
ASSOCIATION, VIDEO SOFTWARE
DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and MICHIGAN No. 05-73634
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION ,
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
Plaintiffs, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEPE
v
Defendants.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 2 of 13
NATURE OF ACTION
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
2
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 3 of 13
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
PARTIES
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
15. Defendant admits that Jennifer M. Granholm is the Governor of the State of
Michigan. The remaining allegations of paragraph 15 contain conclusions of law, not averments
of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
16. Defendant admits that Michael A. Cox is the Attorney General of the State of
Michigan. The remaining allegations of paragraph 16 contain conclusions of law, not averments
3
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 4 of 13
of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
17. Defendant Kym L. Worthy was served separately and an appearance was entered
on her behalf by separate counsel. Defendants defer to her attorneys to answer any allegations
on her behalf. If an answer is required, Defendants state that the allegations of paragraph 17
contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the
extent a response may be deemed necessary, said allegations are denied as untrue.
BACKGROUND
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
21. The allegations of paragraph 21 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
4
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 5 of 13
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
The Act
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
27. The allegations of paragraph 27 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
28. The allegations of paragraph 28 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
29. The allegations of paragraph 29 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
30. The allegations of paragraph 30 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
5
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 6 of 13
31. The allegations of paragraph 31 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
32. The allegations of paragraph 32 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
33. The allegations of paragraph 33 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
34. The allegations of paragraph 34 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
39. The allegations of paragraph 39 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
6
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 7 of 13
40. The allegations of paragraph 40 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
44. The allegations of paragraph 44 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed necessary, said
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
7
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 8 of 13
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
55. The allegations of paragraph 55 contain conclusions of law, not averments of fact,
COUNT I
8
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 9 of 13
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
COUNT II
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
9
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 10 of 13
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
COUNT III
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
COUNT IV
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
averments of fact, for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed
10
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 11 of 13
COUNT V
75-76 Defendants deny the allegations for the reason that this claim was dismissed by
Defendants pray the Court enter its judgment denying Plaintiffs' Complaint with
(a) As the allegations in paragraph (a) of the Prayer for Relief, it contain conclusions
of law, not averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response
(b) As the allegations in paragraph (b) of the Prayer for Relief, it contain conclusions
of law, not averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response
(c) As the allegations in paragraph (c) of the Prayer for Relief, it contain conclusions
of law, not averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response
(d) As the allegations in paragraph (d) of the Prayer for Relief, it contain conclusions
of law, not averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response
(e) As the allegations in paragraph (e) of the Prayer for Relief, it contain conclusions
of law, not averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response
11
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 12 of 13
1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiffs' Complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements found in the
6. This Court should abstain from deciding the delegation question because the
question of whether the Michigan Legislature improperly delegated its authority to a private
Defendants pray the Court enter its judgment denying Plaintiffs' Complaint with
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Cox
Attorney General
s/ Denise C. Barton
P.O. Box 30736
Lansing, MI 48909
Primary E-Mail: Bartond@michigan.gov
(P41535)
Dated: February 2, 2006
12
Case 2:05-cv-73634-GCS-SDP Document 55 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 2, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk
of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing of the following:
Answer to First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses.
s/ Denise C. Barton
Dept of Attorney General
Public Employment, Elections & Tort Defense Div.
P.O. Box 30736
Lansing, MI 48909-8236
(517) 373-6434
Primary E-mail: bartond@michigan.gov
(P41535)
2005/entertainment/answer(amended cmplt)
13