Not Legal Advice: How I Was Taught To Respond to a Frivolous Cease and Desist Letter

By Michael Kelman Portney

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. THIS IS SIMPLY HOW I WAS TAUGHT YOU MAY REPLY TO A CEASE & DESIST LETTER, AS PART OF MY BUSINESS DEGREE. SPECIFICALLY, BUSINESS LAW 335.

Mr. Mohamed,

I acknowledge receipt of your FedEx package. For efficiency, please direct all further communications to me by email only. Additional mailings are unnecessary.

If your clients intend to file suit, I will waive formal service of process to save them time and expense. I have met your clients’ deadline; they have missed mine. In the absence of resolution, I intend to file in Arizona for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, fraud, and related claims. Each day of needless delay compounds the documented harm.

Your cease and desist letter is rejected. I will not cease or desist. Without a filing, it is plainly an intimidation tactic, and it failed. I am not intimidated because I am educated on the topic of frivolous lawsuits.

That said, I suggest an immediate Rule 408 settlement conference, conducted under NDA, so your clients may be assured that protected discussions will not generate additional content for my business.

If no lawsuit is filed, and no indication of a lawsuit is provided by the end of this week, I will begin the process of filing in Arizona next week. Unlike your letter, my filing will not be frivolous.

Do your clients agree to waive service of process, extending to me the same courtesy I have extended to them?

I demand a response by 5:00 p.m. this Friday.

Rightously,

Michael Kelman Portney