Judge to Lutfi: Stay Away from the Britster

SamThe federal judge in the Britney Spears conservatorship saga has issued an order extending the restraining order against Sam Lutfi.

According to the order, Lutfi must stay clear of Brit -- and that includes phone contact -- through March 17. What's more, the judge ruled that Lutfi has been properly served with legal papers. Lutfi's rep had challenged today's service of process, but the judge said no problemo.

The judge has already indicated the case is headed back to state court. Lutfi has other problems. As TMZ first reported, LAPD's Robbery Homicide Division is investigating Lutfi for allegedly drugging Brit.




Reader Comments

(Page 13 of 13) Previous 15 Comments

181. #153...Disgusted...

Agree! I believe Brit started her mental slide after she and Justin Timberlake broke up! It seems like she wanted to Play Grown-up (get married, have babies, etc.) to prove something to her parents and herself, way before she was ready! Brit bit off more than she could chew and she's going to have to live with her choices!

Osama Lutfi is indeed a PREDATOR! He hones in on weak and messed-up people then messes them up completely! He is a very sick person! I hope he ends up in PRISON where he can hang out with like-minded individuals.

Posted at 3:43PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by anonymous

182. THAT IS SO WRONG... HOW DO YOU ALL KNOW THAT HE WAS SUPPLYING WITH DRUGS... AS A MATTER OF FACT.. THEY WERE IN LOVE AND ALWAYS KEPT A GOOD EYE ON HIS BELOVED BRITNEY./..

Posted at 9:04PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by shirlina

183. HE HAD MONEY ............................ SO WHY WOULD HE ASK BRITNEY FOR MONEY?????????????????????????

Posted at 9:04PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by shirlina

184. Nobody likes Mr. Lutfi???

Posted at 5:53PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by SpazZzZz

185. I 'Heart' Prudence Juris and LawDawg!

Got anymore info on this new development?!

Posted at 6:17PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by itsy

186. Thanks, itsy. I'm just trying to clear some of the misconceptions about the law and court procedures. BTW, to DAMD who posted the following: "168. I am surprised that it took this long. I believe the Court could have insisted that if that persons (Sam Lufti) has legal reps, you can serve the attorney. Just a thought." Posted at 12:13PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by DAMD. DAMD, bless your heart, you are partly correct. The FIRST time that a party is served, he/she/it must be served personally, in accordance with procedures that are set forth by law. Generally, a person has to be served in person, a corporation can be served by delivering the papers to its registered agent, etc. AFTER THE FIRST TIME, if an attorney enters an appearance on behalf of the person served (literally, by appearing in court, or figuratively by filing a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss, an attorney would be "appearing"), then future service may be had by mailing the papers to the attorney's office and that would constitute service. Soooooooo, in this instance, the process server first had to deliver the notice of the TRO to Sammy boy. Now that he is on notice of the proceeding, future service can be accomplished by mail.

A common misconception that I have seen on this site is that the service on Sam was smehow defective. Of course, TMZ suggested this, but the reality is that the TRO was served prior to its expiration, so it is effective. However, California law requires that a person against whom a TRO is obtained has the right to 48 hours' notice in advance of the hearing, and in this case, Sam was served less than 48 hours before the scheduled hearing. To make him appear in court with fewer than 48 hours to prepare or seek legal counsel would violate California's notion of due process. If Sam was so easy to locate -- right outside showing up outside his apartment on Thursday -- it's probably because he thought he was home free in the last 48-hour stretch. Bad judgment on his part. The remedy is to seek precisely what the conservator in this case sought: a rescheduled hearing and an extension of the TRO until the hearing date. Here, because that Bozo Eardley filed his notice of removal the federal court currently has jurisdiction. The federal judge wants to maintain the status quo until all the issues revolving around the removal question are resolved (and he hikes the ball back to the state court, which clearly will happen). This explains why he would grant the extension of the TRO. Now the rules of procedure applicable to federal proceedings apply, and although I haven't researched it, I would gues that the federal court can extend an TRO out to 30 days. Sam may have shot himself in the foot with his jurisdictional games.

Posted at 6:43PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by lawdawg

187. uh, cash cow. comes to mind/

Posted at 10:22PM on Feb 22nd 2008 by ag4

188. ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!!!

Posted at 8:49AM on Feb 23rd 2008 by lise

Previous 15 Comments