RESPONSE to Motion re [22] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, [17] MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Aaron Greenspan. (Greenspan, Aaron)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 1:11-cv-12000-RBC
v.
RANDOM HOUSE, INC.; MEZCO, INC.;
BENJAMIN MEZRICH; COLUMBIA
PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC. a/k/a SONY
PICTURES a/k/a COLUMBIA TRISTAR
MOTION PICTURE GROUP,
Defendants.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
AND MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff respectfully opposes Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff has outlined valid
legal claims against Defendants, and has more than adequate standing to bring said claims as the
author of a copyrighted book misused by Defendants, the subject of defamatory writing in The
Accidental Billionaires, the topic of defamatory speech by Defendant Mezrich, and the Chief
Executive Officer of a competitor of Defendant Random House, Inc. that derives revenue in part
from book sales and has suffered damages from Defendants’ unlawful actions.
Defendants’ respective memoranda in support of their motions to dismiss are, as might be
expected given their proponents’ histories, chock full of errors and half-truths. The fact that
Defendants’ aggregate market capitalization can be measured in the billions of dollars, and that
Defendants routinely employ expensive attorneys to distort the truth on their behalf, does not Page 2 itself alter the legitimacy of Plaintiff’s claims. Nor does Plaintiff’s pro se status have any impact
on Plaintiff’s standing in this matter or the validity of Plaintiff’s claims.
In their motions to dismiss, Defendants attempt to portray Plaintiff as vindictive, seeking
an “impermissible attempt to punish Moving Defendants for not telling his story.” Motion of
Random House, Inc., Mezco, Inc. and Benjamin Mezrich to Dismiss with Prejudice ¶2.
Defendants further disparage Plaintiff by suggesting that he cannot tell the difference between
the wrongdoing of his former classmate Mark Zuckerberg and the wrongdoing of Defendant
Mezrich. The evidence clearly contradicts these specious allegations.
Plaintiff, who is more than able to distinguish between two experienced liars, specifically
did not want Defendant Mezrich or his business partners to tell his story at the time that Mezrich
contacted him, nor does he now. Nor has Plaintiff requested in any way that the court somehow
compel Defendants to tell his story, as Defendants erroneously imply. Rather, Defendant
Mezrich went ahead telling the story in the reckless manner Plaintiff feared, and Plaintiff has
requested that this Court intervene because Defendants have since proceeded to market that story
as “true” when they actually know it to be totally false. In so doing, Defendants have brazenly
infringed Plaintiff’s copyright while also publicly demeaning Plaintiff, the very person they were
stealing from. This unlawful activity has unquestionably harmed Plaintiff, said harm is ongoing,
and it must stop.
Some of the arguments made in Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss are so
completely devoid of factual basis, or deny such obvious truths, that it is hard to believe
Defendants expect to be taken seriously. For example, in instances where Defendants insist that
Plaintiff “pleads no facts whatsoever to support his bare allegations of ‘unfair marketing,’”
Plaintiff wonders if counsel for Defendants perhaps forgot to read the Complaint, as such facts
are present in paragraphs 10, 12, 74, 96, 99, and 110. To reiterate, it is a clear, unquestionable, Page 3 incontestable fact that Defendant Mezrich has called his work, The Accidental Billionaires,
“true,” and something that he stands by, when his version of events is not even close to being
true. This fact is directly supported by the five-page attachment to the Complaint entitled,
“Schedule B: Errors in The Accidental Billionaires,” which is merely representative, and to
which Defendants have issued absolutely no response. This is notable given that Defendants
spent forty pages highlighting every other supposed issue with the Complaint (many of which are
redundant and overlap).
Defendants, through their respective motions to dismiss, are attempting to convince this
Court that they are either unwilling or unable to understand the nature of Plaintiff’s claims due to
inadequate pleading. Plaintiff asserts it has clearly set out in its Complaint (1) the nature of its
claims, (2) numerous facts more than adequate to support those claims, and (3) clear evidence
that it has standing to bring said claims.
A memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motions is attached.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny the Motions to Dismiss
filed by all Defendants.
th
Respectfully submitted this 17 day of January, 2012.
Aaron Greenspan College Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1303
Phone: +1 415 670 9350
Fax: +1 415 373 3959
E-Mail: greenspan@post.harvard.edu Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Aaron Greenspan, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will
be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing
(NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.
By
Aaron Greenspan College Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306-1303
greenspan@post.harvard.edu
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:11-cv-12000-RBC Document 28 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 1:11-cv-12000-RBC
v.
RANDOM HOUSE, INC.; MEZCO, INC.;
BENJAMIN MEZRICH; COLUMBIA
PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC. a/k/a SONY
PICTURES a/k/a COLUMBIA TRISTAR
MOTION PICTURE GROUP,
Defendants.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
AND MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff respectfully opposes Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff has outlined valid
legal claims against Defendants, and has more than adequate standing to bring said claims as the
author of a copyrighted book misused by Defendants, the subject of defamatory writing in The
Accidental Billionaires, the topic of defamatory speech by Defendant Mezrich, and the Chief
Executive Officer of a competitor of Defendant Random House, Inc. that derives revenue in part
from book sales and has suffered damages from Defendants’ unlawful actions.
Defendants’ respective memoranda in support of their motions to dismiss are, as might be
expected given their proponents’ histories, chock full of errors and half-truths. The fact that
Defendants’ aggregate market capitalization can be measured in the billions of dollars, and that
Defendants routinely employ expensive attorneys to distort the truth on their behalf, does not
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:11-cv-12000-RBC Document 28 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 4
itself alter the legitimacy of Plaintiff’s claims. Nor does Plaintiff’s pro se status have any impact
on Plaintiff’s standing in this matter or the validity of Plaintiff’s claims.
In their motions to dismiss, Defendants attempt to portray Plaintiff as vindictive, seeking
an “impermissible attempt to punish Moving Defendants for not telling his story.” Motion of
Random House, Inc., Mezco, Inc. and Benjamin Mezrich to Dismiss with Prejudice ¶2.
Defendants further disparage Plaintiff by suggesting that he cannot tell the difference between
the wrongdoing of his former classmate Mark Zuckerberg and the wrongdoing of Defendant
Mezrich. The evidence clearly contradicts these specious allegations.
Plaintiff, who is more than able to distinguish between two experienced liars, specifically
did not want Defendant Mezrich or his business partners to tell his story at the time that Mezrich
contacted him, nor does he now. Nor has Plaintiff requested in any way that the court somehow
compel Defendants to tell his story, as Defendants erroneously imply. Rather, Defendant
Mezrich went ahead telling the story in the reckless manner Plaintiff feared, and Plaintiff has
requested that this Court intervene because Defendants have since proceeded to market that story
as “true” when they actually know it to be totally false. In so doing, Defendants have brazenly
infringed Plaintiff’s copyright while also publicly demeaning Plaintiff, the very person they were
stealing from. This unlawful activity has unquestionably harmed Plaintiff, said harm is ongoing,
and it must stop.
Some of the arguments made in Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss are so
completely devoid of factual basis, or deny such obvious truths, that it is hard to believe
Defendants expect to be taken seriously. For example, in instances where Defendants insist that
Plaintiff “pleads no facts whatsoever to support his bare allegations of ‘unfair marketing,’”
Plaintiff wonders if counsel for Defendants perhaps forgot to read the Complaint, as such facts
are present in paragraphs 10, 12, 74, 96, 99, and 110. To reiterate, it is a clear, unquestionable,
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:11-cv-12000-RBC Document 28 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 4
incontestable fact that Defendant Mezrich has called his work, The Accidental Billionaires,
“true,” and something that he stands by, when his version of events is not even close to being
true. This fact is directly supported by the five-page attachment to the Complaint entitled,
“Schedule B: Errors in The Accidental Billionaires,” which is merely representative, and to
which Defendants have issued absolutely no response. This is notable given that Defendants
spent forty pages highlighting every other supposed issue with the Complaint (many of which are
redundant and overlap).
Defendants, through their respective motions to dismiss, are attempting to convince this
Court that they are either unwilling or unable to understand the nature of Plaintiff’s claims due to
inadequate pleading. Plaintiff asserts it has clearly set out in its Complaint (1) the nature of its
claims, (2) numerous facts more than adequate to support those claims, and (3) clear evidence
that it has standing to bring said claims.
A memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motions is attached.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny the Motions to Dismiss
filed by all Defendants.
th
Respectfully submitted this 17 day of January, 2012.
Aaron Greenspan
884 College Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1303
Phone: +1 415 670 9350
Fax: +1 415 373 3959
E-Mail: greenspan@post.harvard.edu
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:11-cv-12000-RBC Document 28 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Aaron Greenspan, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will
be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing
(NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.
By
Aaron Greenspan
884 College Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306-1303
greenspan@post.harvard.edu
Back to 
