UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS: FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 07-35548 AEGIS IT SOLUTIONS, INC., and MARIYAM AKMAL, individually, Plaintiffs Appellants, vy, CINGULAR WIRELESS, INC., TEKSYSTEMS, INC., GIL RAMIREZ and JANE DOE RAMIREZ, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court Wester District Of Washington Case No. CV-06-00748-JLR Initial Brief for Plaintiff3/A ppellants, AEGIS IT SOLUTIONS, INC., and MARIYAM AKMAL. Sharonda D. Amamilo (WSBA No. 34138) Timothy J. Walton (CASB No. 184292) ‘THE LAW OFFICE OF AMAMILO & ASSOCS WALTON & ROESS LLP 1113 A Street, Suite 209 407 S. California Ave. ‘Tacoma, WA 98402 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (253) 964-8406 - VOICE (650) 566-8500 - VOICE. (253) 964-8584 - FAX (650) 618-8687 - FAX lof 19CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 26.1 and 28(a)(1) Plaintiff AEGIS IT SOLUTIONS, INC. is a privately held corporation. It has an interest, financial or otherwise in the outcome of this litigation. It has no parent corporation, subsidiaries or affiliates nor has it issued any shares to the public. TABLE OF CONTENTS Corporate Disclosure Statement... Table of Contents..........-s000++ ‘Argument. ‘Table of Authorities. Jurisdictional Statement... Ninth Circuit Local Rule 28-2.6 Statement. Statement of Issues Presented For Review. Statement of The Case. Statement of The Facts... Summary of Argument. ARGUMENT. 1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE A DISPUTED MATERIAL FACT EXISTED AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS COMMITTED DEFAMATION PER SE IN BAD FAITH AND WITH MALICE IN THEIR REPORTING TO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF WASHINGTON STATE. I, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE A DISPUTED MATERIAL FACT EXISTED AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD THE RIGHT TO UNILATERALLY CONTROL THE WORK SCHEDULE OF THE PLAINTIFF MARIYAM AKMAL WHEN PLAINTIFF AEGIS IT SOLUTIONS WAS. AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. 20f19Il. SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER HARSHLY PREJUDICED THE PLAINTIFFS! ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Conelusior Certificate of Compliance.. Certification of Service. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 398 US 144, 157, 26 L.Ed. 2d 142 (1970)....8 Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co, 224 F.2d 1, 5 (C.A. 5th 1955).e.ccecn7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 91 L.Bd 2d 202 (1986)......8 Bowen v. Westerhaus, 224 Kan. 42, 578 P.2d 1102 (1978). al Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77, 220 Ill. Dec 195, 672 N.E.2d 1207 (1996)... ‘ ‘ 3 9 Dorsie v, Kurtin, 96 Cal. Rpte. 528, 536 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971).ocsosccenssntnnserserninenninee Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn.2d 451, P.2d 1207 (1992), First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co, 88 S. Ct. 1575, 1592-1593, 391 US 253, 289, 20 L.Ed, 2d 569 (1968). . seneat Si cpinessanron frase 7 Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle, 226 Kan. 167, 597 P.2d 611 (1979)... Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., 362 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2004)... Krasinski v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 124 Ill. 2d 483, 125 Ill. Dec. 310, 530 NE2d 468 (1988), aerate aactanesenseltbnes 7 a) Kalas v. Flores, 255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir, 2001)... 3 of 19