Craven Moorehead

Craven Moorehead
All Titles TV Episodes Celebs Companies Keywords Advanced Search
Fully supported English (United States) Partially supported Français (Canada) Français (France) Deutsch (Deutschland) हिंदी (भारत) Italiano (Italia) Português (Brasil) Español (España) Español (México)

Jump to:
Overview (2) |
Family (1)

Filmography

by Year

by Job

by Ratings

by Votes

by Genre

by Keyword

Did You Know?

Personal Quotes

Trivia

Trademark

Photo & Video

Photo Gallery

Trailers and Videos

Opinion

Awards

Related Items

Credited With

News

External Sites

Professional Services

Get more at IMDbPro

Other Works

|
Publicity Listings

|
Official Sites

Monica Mayhem (1997 -
?) (divorced)

It looks like you were misusing this feature by going too fast. You’ve been temporarily blocked from using it.

Search All
Parties
Attorneys
Judges

Court Coverage
Federal Court Records
State Court Records
Developer Hub

State Courts

California

On 09/25/2020 CRAVEN MOOREHEAD filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against ARIA LEE . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MELVIN D. SANDVIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details
Parties
Documents
Dockets

Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTON TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE)

Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER CCP SECTION 425.16

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation
Cases involving personal injury - assault/battery/defamation caused by assault, battery, or defamation
CRAVEN MOOREHEAD, ET AL. VS ARIA LEE

Company

Features
Industries
About
Careers
Pricing
Blog
Contact Us

Resources

Court Coverage
Federal Court Records
State Court Records
Developer Hub

Follow Us

linkedin
twitter
facebook
Youtube

General Disclaimer
Terms of Service
Cancellation and Refund Policy
Privacy Policy
Public Records Policy

Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation
9/25/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
9/25/2020: Notice of Case Management Conference
9/25/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
12/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTON TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE)
11/4/2020: Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice
2/16/2021: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint
2/16/2021: Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)
2/16/2021: Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER CCP SECTION 425.16
1/29/2021: Substitution of Attorney
2/22/2021: Proof of Personal Service
2/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
5/6/2021: Case Management Statement

Hearing 07/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

Hearing 05/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Hearing 05/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16

Hearing 05/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Case Management Conference

Docket Case Management Statement; Filed by Aria Lee (Defendant)

Docket at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

Docket Minute Order ( (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

Docket Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Craven Moorehead (Plaintiff); Black Wings Media, Inc. (Plaintiff)

Docket Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion); Filed by Aria Lee (Defendant)

Docket Motion for Leave (to File a Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16); Filed by Aria Lee (Defendant)

Docket Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Aria Lee (Defendant)

Docket Answer; Filed by Aria Lee (Defendant)

Docket at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice - Held

Docket Minute Order ( (HEARING ON MOTON TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE)); Filed by Clerk

Docket Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice; Filed by Craven Moorehead (Plaintiff)

Docket Complaint; Filed by Craven Moorehead (Plaintiff); Black Wings Media, Inc. (Plaintiff)

Docket Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

Docket Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

Docket Summons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

Docket Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Craven Moorehead (Plaintiff); Black Wings Media, Inc. (Plaintiff)
Case Number: *******0566   Hearing Date: December 09, 2020   Dept: F47
APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Aria Lee
NOTICE: Application served on Defendant by mail on 11/3/20. Defendant has not yet appeared in the action; therefore, there is no address of record for Defendant. However, Defendant was not required to be served because she has not yet appeared. See CCP 1014.
RELIEF REQUESTED : An order permitting Robert J. Hantman to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiffs in this action.
RULING : The application is granted.
For future reference, counsel should note that the applicable California Rule of Court is Rule 9.40, not Rule 983.
Case Number: *******0566   Hearing Date: May 24, 2021   Dept: F47
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED : An order granting Defendant Aria Lee leave to file her Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ cause of action for defamation – libel per se.
RULING : The unopposed motion is granted.
On 9/25/20, Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc. filed this action against Defendant Aria Lee alleging a single cause of action for defamation – libel per se. The Complaint alleges that Defendant published a video on Twitter which falsely stated that Moorehead, an adult film director, attacked and sexually abused Plaintiff, an adult film actress, on two occasions in 2019. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendant made similar defamatory statements against Moorehead in an interview published on the Adult Video News media network.
When Defendant answered the Complaint, she was representing herself and did not realize she had the option of filing a Special Motion to Strike or that such a motion had to be filed within 60 days of being served with the Complaint. Now that Defendant has retained counsel, she seeks leave to file her Special Motion to Strike.
The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper . The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. (emphasis added).
Due to the fact that this action is still in its early stages and there being no showing of prejudice to Plaintiffs, if the relief is granted, the Court exercises its discretion to allow Defendant to have her Special Motion to Strike, which was filed more than 60 days after she was served with the Complaint, to be heard on 7/7/21 as it is already scheduled for hearing on that date. See CCP 425.16(f); San Diegans for Open Government (2015) 240 CA4th 611, 624.
Case Number: *******0566   Hearing Date: May 26, 2021   Dept: F47
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED : An order granting Defendant Aria Lee leave to file pseudonymously file a compulsory cross-complaint against Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc. Lee also requests an order allowing her to list Moorehead’s true name as a cross-defendant.
Plaintiffs are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly, bookmarking declarations and exhibits). See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.
Additionally, Plaintiffs are reminded that in the future they must use the official report volume (i.e., California Appellate volume rather than California Reporter volume) when citing cases. CRC 3.1113(c).
On 9/25/20, Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc. filed this action against Defendant Aria Lee alleging a single cause of action for defamation – libel per se. The Complaint alleges that Defendant published a video on Twitter which falsely stated that Moorehead, an adult film director, attacked and sexually abused Plaintiff, an adult film actress, on two occasions in 2019. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendant made similar defamatory statements against Moorehead in an interview published on the Adult Video News media network.
When Defendant answered the Complaint, she was representing herself and did not realize she had the option of filing a Cross-Complaint because she claims to have “amicably resolved all differences” with others. Now that Defendant has retained counsel, she seeks leave to file a compulsory Cross-Complaint. Additionally, Defendant requests permission to list Moorehead’s true name as a cross-defendant (rather than his pseudonym, Craven Moorehead) while continuing to use her pseudonym as the cross-complainant. Plaintiffs have served and filed a late opposition to the motion. The opposition was due on 5/13/21, nine court days before the hearing. CCP 1005(b). Plaintiffs did not file and serve the opposition until 5/17/21. A reply has not been filed.
If Defendant wishes to file and serve a reply, the hearing will be continued. In such case, the reply is due to be filed and served at least five court days before the hearing date. If Defendant elects not to file and serve a reply, the hearing will proceed on the merits and the motion will be granted as set forth below.
Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.
A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.
Relief to file a compulsory cross-complaint must be liberally granted to avoid forfeiture of causes of action, unless there is a showing that the party seeking to file the cross-complaint has acted in bad faith. Silver Organizations, Ltd. (1990) 217 CA3d 94, 98-99; Foot’s Transfer and Storage Company (1980) 114 CA3d 897, 901-903. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that Defendant’s failure to file her claims against them sooner and/or her request to file the compulsory cross-complaint at this time are made in bad faith. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants may raise any challenges/defenses to the cross-claims by demurrer, summary judgment/adjudication and/or at trial.
With regard to Defendant’s request to use Moorehead’s true name as a cross-defendant while prosecuting the cross-complaint with her pseudonym, the authorities relied on are distinguishable from the facts here. The cases relied on recognize a party’s right to preserve his/her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 CA4th 758, 767 citing Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (9 th Cir. 2000) 214 F3d 1058, 1067. The cases do not relate to a cross-complaint wherein the proposed cross-defendant has used pseudonyms in the complaint to protect the identities of both the plaintiff (proposed cross-defendant) and the defendant (proposed cross-complainant) as is the case here. Neither party cites authority directly on point. The Court does not object to Defendant using her pseudonym to prosecute the Cross-Complaint; however, if Defendant uses Moorehead’s true name in the Cross-Complaint, it appears that Plaintiffs would have the right to amend their Complaint to set forth Defendant’s true name, rather than her pseudonym. Therefore, if both parties wish to maintain their anonymity, they must come to an agreement that both will proceed using the pseudonym of the other in their respective pleadings.
Defendant must separately file the Cross-Complaint.
Case Number: *******0566 Hearing Date: July 7, 2021 Dept: F47
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED : An order, pursuant to CCP 425.16: (1) striking Plaintiff’s cause of action for Defamation – Libel Per Se asserted against Defendant in the Complaint on the grounds that the conduct complained of in the Complaint constitutes protected expression as defined by CCP 425.16 and (2) awarding Defendant her attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing party in the amount of $6,301.82.
RULING : The hearing on the motion will be continued.
On 9/25/20, Plaintiffs Craven Moorehead and Black Wings Media, Inc. filed this action against Defendant Aria Lee alleging a single cause of action for defamation – libel per se. The Complaint alleges that Defendant published a video on Twitter which falsely stated that Moorehead, an adult film director, attacked and sexually abused Plaintiff, an adult film actress, on two occasions in 2019. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendant made similar defamatory statements against Moorehead in an interview published on the Adult Video News media network.
Pursuant to this Court’s 5/24/21 order allowing Defendant to file the instant motion more than 60 days after the service of the complaint, Defendant seeks an order, pursuant to CCP 425.16: (1) striking Plaintiff’s cause of action for Defamation – Libel Per Se asserted against Defendant in the Complaint on the grounds that the conduct compl
Alison Waite Nude
Best Deepthroat Porn
Latina Cameltoe

Craven Moorehead

Report Page