Worldcon 76’s attorney has filed replies to the plaintiff’s opposition to her motion for summary judgment in Jon Del Arroz’ defamation suit ahead of the hearing scheduled for May 11. (These answer the plaintiff’s documents discussed in “Del Arroz Response to Worldcon 76 Motion for Summary Judgment in Defamation Suit Now Online” on April 29.)

San Francisco Science Fiction Convention Inc. is the parent corporation of Worldcon 76, held in San Jose. Del Arroz sued SFSFC in 2018 after the Worldcon 76 committee announced he would not be allowed to attend the convention (“Del Arroz Files Suit Against Worldcon 76”; “We have taken this step because he has made it clear that he fully intends to break our code of conduct….”)

In February 2019, the court tossed four of the five causes of action in Del Arroz’s lawsuit against Worldcon 76’s parent corporation. The case continues on the fifth complaint, defamation. 

If Santa Clara (CA) Superior Court Judge Socrates P. Manoukian does not grant the motion for summary judgment, the case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning June 14.

The full set of documents filed in the case can be downloaded free of charge from the Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara court’s Case Information Online website – search case number 18-CV-334547.

The statements that begin and end “Defendant San Francisco Science Fiction Conventions, Inc.’s Reply To Plaintiff’s Opposition To Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment” summarize why Worldcon 76 urges the court to grant their motion:

INTRODUCTION

The only cause of action that remains in this case is defamation and the only issue remaining is whether or not the Statement made by San Francisco Science Fiction Conventions, Inc. (SFSFC) is defamatory. Plaintiff’s Opposition attempts to muddy up the waters of this straightforward case. Plaintiff would like this Court to adjudicate his claims for discrimination, intimidation or disparate treatment due to his religious and/or political beliefs. But those claims have been dismissed. Plaintiff attempts to inject misleading and irrelevant evidence, taken out of context, to try and show triable issue of fact. This “evidence” does not pertain to the issues at hand. SFSFC made difficult decision, after due diligence, to revoke Plaintiff’s attending membership in order to protect the environment of its convention. Based on Plaintiff’s conduct and reputation online and in the science fiction community, SFSFC believed Plaintiff was going to break its Code of Conduct by wearing bodycam to the Convention, provoking others and causing disturbances. The Statement SFSFC published was true. Because Plaintiff has no competent evidence to show triable issue of fact exists, summary judgment should be granted.

…CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s Opposition has failed to raise any triable issue of material facts to overcome the instant motion for summary judgment. With the trial just over one month away, Plaintiff woefully inadequate Opposition confirms that he is pursuing this lawsuit in bad faith. His remaining claim for defamation lacks merit and his continuing pursuit of this litigation is waste of the court’s precious resources and is the cause of significant distress and substantial expenses to Defendant.

Available at the court webite:

The principal documents filed by Worldcon 76’s attorney on May 6 and available for download at the court’s website are:

1. DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTIONS, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [C.C.P. 437C] (9 pages)

2. DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTIONS, INCJs OBJECTION T0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN HIS OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [C.C.P. 437C] (10 pages)

3. [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTIONS, INC.’s OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [C.C.P. 437C] (13 pages)

4. DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS (54 pages)

5. DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS (18 pages)

6. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MOVANT’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (25 pages)