Claims Can't Be 'Articulated,' Larry Flynt Attorneys Say
Larry Flynt attorney Amanda Lenhart filed the brief with the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. The motion to dismiss was filed in the Court of Common Pleas Feb. 15. Jimmy Flynt’s brief opposing the motion to dismiss was filed May 4 in the same court.
According to Larry Flynt’s reply brief obtained by XBIZ, “plaintiffs have not managed to articulate a plausible claim for relief against the Larry Flynt defendants. Instead, Plaintiff’s brief rehashes the same vague allegations… the only notable additions are the countless instances of unsupported speculation and gross misstatements of fact.”
The brief continues to say that these desperate attempts to save the complaint can’t overcome the lack of necessary allegations and facts. Further, if the complaint truly “reflects Jimmy’s life work,” as the plaintiffs suggest, that only highlights the limited nature of Jimmy’s role in the supposed partnership entities.
“Jimmy was not Larry’s partner, no matter how much he wishes otherwise,” the brief says.
Larry Flynt said in previous testimony, “My brother has always been an employee. He’s never been my partner.”
When asked if Larry and Jimmy had an agreement in 1970 to develop a string of clubs, Larry replied, “No. Jimmy and I never had an agreement to be in partners on anything. And you know, he never put a penny in any business I ever had, not one plug nickel, you know.”
Larry Flynt’s brief continues to outline a handful of arguments in support of their motion to dismiss including that the plaintiffs haven’t pled a claim for wrongful termination because they have not alleged that Jimmy is a minority shareholder in a close corporation.
Further, the brief says Jimmy had no right of ownership in his salary and benefits after he was terminated.
“It cannot be reasonably argued that an employee, once fired, has an ownership right in any future salary of benefits.”
In addition, the brief says that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the non-Ohio Larry Flynt defendants.
“Plaintiff’s argument in favor of jurisdiction amount to nothing more than conjecture about events that transpired more than thirty years ago and have no connection to the defendants named in the lawsuit.”
Therefore, the brief says, the court should dismiss the claims against the Larry Flynt defendants as there can be no reasonable dispute that California is a far more convenient forum than Ohio.
However, Jimmy Flynt claims in his May 4 opposition brief that, “plaintiff’s complaint sets forth detailed facts related to the business dealings and relationship between Jimmy and Larry over the past 40 years. The complaint chronicles the beginning of their business endeavors in Ohio as well as growth, expansion and ups and downs of the Hustler enterprise.”
According to Jimmy Flynt’s brief, “Jimmy and Larry have conducted their business affairs over the years in the form of an incorporated partnership through an affiliated group of companies.
“These affiliated companies have unity of ownership, management, operation and control and have always been treated as one close corporation with different revenue streams. Corporate formalities have seldom been followed and corporate affairs have always been informal. In the early days, Jimmy and Larry’s “company” was known as ‘Hustler” or “Mini Clubs.” Today, it is known as “Hustler” or “LFP.”