Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
(SBN 060553)
Brian T. Hildreth (SBN 213141)
2 BELL, McANDREWS, & HILTACHK, LLP
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600
3 Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 442-7757
4 Facsimile: (916) 442-7759
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF ORANGE
9
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
10
11 DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, Case No. 30-2010-00381664
12 Contestant, OPPOSITION TO CONTESTANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
13 v. SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS.
14 DAMON DUNN and DOES 1 through 18,
15 Defendants. DATE: March 14, 2011
16 TIME: 2:00 p.m.
DEPT.: C33
17 JUDGE: Hon Geoffrey T. Glass
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26 On Thursday, March 10, 2011 Counsel for Defendant Damon Dunn (“Defendant” or
27 “Dunn”) reviewed the on-line docket for the present case. (See Declaration of Brian T. Hildreth
28 (“Hildreth Decl.”), ¶ 2.) In viewing the docket, Counsel for Defendant became aware that
1
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
1 Contestant Orly Taitz (“Contestant”) had purportedly filed a Motion to Compel and set a hearing
2 date for said Motion on Monday, March 14, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in this Court. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 2,
3 and Exhibit A thereto.)
4 The Orange County Superior Court file-stamp displayed on Contestant’s “Notice of
5 Motion to Compel” shows that the Motion apparently was filed on February 18, 2011. (Hildreth
6 Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3, and Exhibit A thereto.) The notice was not signed by Contestant, or anyone else.
7 (Id.)
8 March 14 is only 15 court days after the purported filing of Contestant’s Motion.
9 Monday, February 21 was a court holiday in observance of President’s Day. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 4,
10 and Exhibit B thereto.) Thus, Tuesday, February 22, 2011 would have been the first court day
11 following the filing of the Motion, and March 15 would have been the earliest this Court could
12 hear the matter (without an affirmative order by the Court otherwise).
13 Contestant’s Proof of Service accompanying her Motion to Compel states that Contestant
14 served the present Motion to Compel on Counsel for Defendant on August 30, 2010. However,
15 no notice of the present Motion was ever received by Counsel for Defendant Dunn from
16 Contestant. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 5.) Counsel for Defendant also received no service copy of the
17 present Motion. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 6.)
18
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
19
20 A. Contestant’s Motion to Compel is Improperly Before the Court As It Was Not Filed
At Least 16 Court Days Prior to the Scheduled Hearing of March 14.
21
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 provides that in connection with a
22
motion before the court, “all moving and supporting papers shall be filed…at least 16 court days
23
before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §1005(b) (emphasis added).) California Code of
24
Civil Procedure Section 12 provides that the “time in which any act provided by law is to be done
25
is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §12.)
26
Contestant purportedly filed her Motion on Friday, February 18, 2011, which is only 15
27
court days before the noticed hearing of March 14, 2011, due to the intervening court holiday in
28
2
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
1 observance of President’s Day occurring on February 21, 2011. Code of Civil Procedure, Section
2 135, provides: “Every full day designated as a holiday by Section 6700 of the Government Code
3 ... is a judicial holiday….” Section 6700 of the Government Code states that “[t]he holidays in
4 this state are: *** (e) The third Monday in February….” As a result, February 21, 2011 (the third
5 Monday in February) was a state holiday and judicial holiday, and may not be included as a court
6 day in calculating the proper timing for Contestant’s to have her Motion to Compel heard.
7 Sixteen court days prior to March 14 was Thursday, February 17, 2011.
8 Because Contestant failed to file her Motion at least 16 court days before the hearing, her
9 moving papers are defective and the instant Motion must be denied as a matter of law.
10 B. Contestant’s Motion to Compel Must be Denied Because Contestant Never Provided
11 Notice to Defendant.
12 In addition to the untimely filing of her Motion to Compel, Contestant never provided
13 notice of her Motion to the Defendant. Failure to serve notice of a motion in accordance with
14 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 strips a court of its power to grant the relief
15 requested in the motion and is grounds to deny a motion. (See, e.g., Delgado v. Superior Court
16 (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 560, 562-63 [court’s order for change of venue invalidated because
17 inadequate notice was given pursuant to CCP §1005]; Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108
18 Cal.App.2d 638 [order setting aside default held void due to insufficient notice]; People v.
19 American Contractors Indemnity (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1037,1049 [trial court did not abuse its
20 discretion in denying motion where moving party failed to provide sufficient notice as mandated
21 under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005].) Moreover, even if Contestant had
22 provided notice of her Motion on the day she filed her papers (February 18), the notice would
23 have been defective and a nullity as it was not timely completed 16 court days prior to the date set
25 Finally, even though Counsel for Defendant reviewed the Court’s docket Thursday, March
26 10, 2011 and understood at that time that Contestant had set the hearing for her Motion to Compel
27 for March 14, 2011, this does not constitute proper notice of the present Motion. (See County of
28 Santa Clara v. Perry (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 435, 442 [“The fact that an opposing party has actual
3
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
1 knowledge of a pending court proceeding will not excuse the moving party from the requirement
2 of giving the written notice required by statute.”], citing In re Marriage of Lugo (1985) 170
3 Cal.App.3d 427, 434.)
4 Because of Contestant’s failure to provide notice of her Motion, Defendant would not
5 have been able to timely file his Opposition. Said Opposition would have been due nine court
6 days prior to the hearing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §1005(b).) Nine court days prior to March 14
7 was March 1. Counsel for Defendant filed the present Opposition as soon as possible and hereby
8 requests the Court consider the substance of the argument herein.
9 C. Contestant Has Acted Without Substantial Justification In Filing This Motion And
10 Defendant Should Be Awarded Sanctions For The Costs Incurred In Opposing and
Objecting to Contestant’s Motion.
11
Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in relevant part, provides:
12
...[T]he court, after notice to any affected party, person, or
13 attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the
14 following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a
misuse of the discovery process:
15
The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one
16 engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses,
17
including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
18 conduct.
21 process” as follows:
22 Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to,
[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial
23
justification, a motion to compel...”
24
(Cal Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(h).)
25
Here, Contestant knowingly filed her Motion to Compel 15 court days prior to the date of
26
the hearing and failed to serve Defendant with notice of the Motion and the hearing. Despite
27
these clear procedural defects, Contestant has chosen to proceed with full knowledge that her
28
4
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
1 Motion was defective.
2 Accordingly, Defendant requests an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in
3 connection with filing the instant Opposition in the amount of $2,080.00. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 8.)
4 1. Contestant is a Member of the State Bar of California and is Held to Have a
5 Basic Knowledge of Rules Governing Civil Procedure and Legal Process.
6 Contestant is a licensed member of the California State Bar (Bar No. 223433) and is
7 representing herself in the present action. (Defendant notes that Contestant has failed to display
8 her State Bar number on her pleadings as required by CRC, Rule 2.111.) As observed by the
9 Honorable Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens, in the Court’s unanimous decision in
10 Kay v. Ehrler (1991) 499 U.S. 432, 499, attorneys should be discouraged from electing to appear
11 in propria persona “because such self-representation may often conflict with the general public
12 and legislative policy favoring the effective and successful prosecution of meritorious claims.”
13 (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 274, 292, citing Kay v. Ehrler, supra, 499 U.S. 432.)
27
1
In September 2010, Contestant also filed a purported motion to compel, which was opposed by
28 Defendant. Defendant’s Opposition cited the appropriate rule of Civil Procedure relative to the
timing of filing and service of motions. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 7.)
7
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2
For all of the foregoing reasons and based on the authority cited herein, Defendant
3
respectfully requests that this Court deny the instant Motion in its entirety and award sanctions
4
against Contestant in the amount of $2,080.00, or other such amount as the Court may deem
5
proper, to reimburse Defendant for his attorneys’ fees. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 8.)
6
10 By: ___________________________________
CHARLES H. BELL, JR.
11 BRIAN T. HILDRETH
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions