What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

General discussions concerning institutions and degree programs.

Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby surprises » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:45 pm

I am back again BUT this time with the real surprises :D

Charisma University has sued degreediscussion.com for allowing slanderous and defamation forums against Charisma University. Among the defendants are those that have posted against Charisma University and degreediscussion.com site owner.

This lawsuit is with the Superior Court of California, County of Orange with case number 30-2014-00730009-CU-DF-CJC; the Judge's name is Judge Andrew P. Banks

The degreediscussion.com site owner has been served with the summons and complaint via his e-mail. You may need to contact him to forward the details.

If you are among the defendants and you are using your nickname/fake name to post here, please provide your contact details to Charisma University at info@charismauniversity.org to have the summons and complaint served to you. If you decide not to provide your contact details, you are agreeing that this forum is your best contact information and that you have been served.

At the end, it turns out that Charisma University was not making an empty legal lawsuit threat. This is serious!

Thank you!
surprises
Member
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby worldtraveler » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:52 pm

Surprise Surprise Surprise - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
worldtraveler
Member
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:35 pm

Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby nosborne48 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:42 pm

Served by e mail? Wow, someone needs to read the law on service of process on out of state residents. No one is EVER required to consent to service as a matter of constitutional law. There are times when waiver of service is strategically useful but it can't be forced by default.

Last time someone pulled a stunt like this, the California lawyer tried to sue a sovereign nation in one of his State's federal district courts. Didn't work out so well.

Sorry, I can't help adding one more edit...it will be interesting to see how the plaintiffs establish personal jurisdiction over out of state defendants. Merely posting on a forum likely isn't enough...you'd have to show some damages caused inside California. Not easy...

And I haven't even begun to think about the available defenses!

Ooo! Ooo! And just think of all the terrific discovery the defendants will be able to extract from the plaintiffs! And all of it PUBLIC! :lol:
Una cosa mala nunca muere.
nosborne48
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:42 am

Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby nosborne48 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:58 pm

Now I need to calm down here...my life has been dull lately but you know, there's a wonderful tort called "abuse of process". Makes a GREAT counterclaim! :twisted:
Una cosa mala nunca muere.
nosborne48
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:42 am

Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby Rich Douglas » Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:34 am

Case dismissed today.

From the motion:

Defendant Richard Douglas's Special Motion to Strike (SLAPP) is granted. The court finds that the conduct by defendant Douglas, alleged in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), falls within the provisions of protected conduct under CCP § 425.16(e)(3) & (e)(4).

The burden then shifted to Plaintiff to establish a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim, i.e., a showing of facts that would, if proved at trial, support a judgment in the plaintiff's favor. DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 567, 568. The motion must be supported and opposed by declarations stating facts upon which liability or defense is based. CCP § 425.16(b). Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence in Opposition to the motion. As the Plaintiff's Opposition fails to provide any facts to support any of the causes of action alleged against Defendant in his FAC, Plaintiff has failed to meet his evidentiary burden, and the Defendant's motion is granted.

Defendant Richard Douglas is the prevailing party in this action and is awarded his costs per timely memorandum of costs, and his reasonable attorney's fees incurred in bringing this SLAPP motion per CCP § 425.16(c)(1), in an amount to be determined by a noticed attorney's fees motion.


Dr. Okpala has yet to serve any of the other defendants after more than a year.

Dr. Okpala conducted this case pro se, but was represented by special counsel (appointed just for the hearing) at each of the last two hearings, both of which were ruled in our favor.
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby Rich Douglas » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:18 am

The chickens have come home to roost:

Court order today granting my motion to recover cost associated with the anti-SLAPP decision:

The Court confirms the tentative ruling as follows:

Defendant Richard Douglas's Motion For Attorney's Fees is GRANTED. The court finds that the sum of
$5,985.00 in attorney's fees was reasonably incurred by Defendant Douglas in connection with the
SLAPP motion, and motion for attorney's fees.

The court awards Defendant Douglas the sum of $5,985.00 in attorney's fees against Plaintiff per CCP §
425.16(c).


Dr. Okpala, I'll be in touch.
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron