Page 79 - RICHERT VS. SORKIN THEFT OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND THE WEST WING

lefter denouncing her foi her handling of the credit arbitration and accusing her of being "in cahoots' with other participants in the process [td., Ex. Jl.
It would bc an understatement to suggest that these facts constitute inquiry notice. Rather, they evince a tul1 blown theory of legal liability articulated by plainti{fs and thcir lawyers by mid-Novernber 1995. Renaikably, the Opposition does llot mention any of these facts or the documenls thal contain them, nor explain why plaintiffs should be excused from Iailing 10 lile suit until six years later. We can only infei the success of Tle West Wing ot the publicity gcncrated for Sorkin as its creator has opened old wounds. But it has not revived lapsed causes of action. The six-month ti]ne limit for filing a DFR claim ran out no latcr than May l!196; the Anended Complaint should be dismissed without leave to b ng such a time- bared claim.
C. l hc MBA'S Time Limits for liling c evances llave No Apr)lication Herc
In the middle of their discussion of fedetal preemption, plaintiffs insert a confusing
discussion of Arlicles 11 and 12 of thc MBA, including a long quoted passagc from Article 12.A
IOpp. at 19-201. Bocause plaintifTs have not placcd the text ol the provisions before the Court,
we do so here. Attached as Appendix B to this teply memorandum is the full text ofArticles 10,
1 I and 12 of the 1995 MBA, which sct forth the contractual grievance and arbitration procedure.a
PlaintilTs seem to suggest that the time limits for liling grievances contained in Ajticle 11.A.1 of the MBA should bc applied to fhcir coufi claims [Opp. at 20]. The argumcnt lacks merit. First, the time limits in quesdon are part of tho "rulcs and ptocedures for gricvance and
I
excerpts [see WGA Mot. at 5 n.21.
As in our moving papcrs, we ask the Court to takejudicial notice of thcsc MBA '7