Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kurtz 22

Kurtz 22

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,559|Likes:
Published by AJ Weberman
Kurtz attempted to create a Catch-22 Trap for David Bernis. Judge Cotton ordered him to serve Bernis in Case Number LC 094563 but instead of obeying the Judge he started a new matter LC 095923 that went before Judge Stratton who quashed Kurtz's complaint on the grounds of jurisdiction. Before this happened Kurtz somehow got a default against Bernis. If Bernis had objected to the default he would have recognized the jurisdiction of the California Courts if he did not it would remain in place. How could Kurtz have gotten the default when Bernis was never served in LC 094563?
Kurtz attempted to create a Catch-22 Trap for David Bernis. Judge Cotton ordered him to serve Bernis in Case Number LC 094563 but instead of obeying the Judge he started a new matter LC 095923 that went before Judge Stratton who quashed Kurtz's complaint on the grounds of jurisdiction. Before this happened Kurtz somehow got a default against Bernis. If Bernis had objected to the default he would have recognized the jurisdiction of the California Courts if he did not it would remain in place. How could Kurtz have gotten the default when Bernis was never served in LC 094563?

More info:

Published by: AJ Weberman on Oct 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
";
0)
a
m
O
ffl
£
<*)
n
II*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10
11
12
13
14
16
171819
20
21
2223
24
25
26
27
28
Gary Kurtz, Esq.
SBN
128295
Law
Office
of
Gary
Kurtz
A Professional Law Corporation
20335
Ventura Boulevard, Suite
200
Woodland Hills,
California
91364
Telephone:
818-884-8400
Telefax:
818-884-8404
E-Mail: gary@garykurtzlaw.comAttorney in pro per.
SUPERIOR COURT
OF
CALIFORNIA
GARY
KURTZ,Plaintiff,
vs.
ENOM,INC.,etal.,Defendants.
COUNTY
OF LOS
ANGELES
)
Case
No.
LC
094563
)Assigned
for all purposes to: NW "D"
)OPPOSITION
TO
MOTION
TO
VACATE
)
DEFAULT ENTERED AGAINST)DEFENDANT BERNIS: DECLARATION)
OF
GARY KURTZ
)
)
Date:
Time:Dept.:
October
19,20128:30
a.m.
NW
"D"
I.
Introduction
On
calendar
for
October
19,
2012
is a
procedurally
and
substantively bizarre motion
to
vacate
a
default judgment (note,
a
default
has
been entered
but not a
judgment) entered
against
Defendant Bernis.
The
motion
is not
signed
by Mr.
Bernis
and
procedurally
and
substantively meritless
and should be denied for one or more of the
following
reasons:
1.
Either the motion is filed by Mr. Bernis, without being designated as a specialappearance and, therefore,itconstitutesageneral appearanceand isself defeating;or2. The motion is filed by Mr. Weberman on Mr.
Bernis's
behalf and cannot beconsidered because Mr. Weberman is not a lawyer and cannot represent Mr. Bernis; and
3.
Jurisdiction
is
proper
in
California
for
this claim.OPPOSITION
TO
MOTION
TO
VACATE DEFAULT
1
 
Lw
Oc
o
Gy
KzA
PLC2
Vu
Bevd
Se
2Woa
HsCona
9
3
1
23
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
II.
This
Matter
Is
Stayed Regarding
Mr.
Weberman
Mr. Weberman has filed a vague notice of appeal presumably on
jurisdictional
grounds,
and the
matter
is
advancing
in the
Court
of Appeal.
Pursuant
to
Code
of
Civil
Procedure §
916(a),
this action is stayed regarding matters involving Mr. Weberman,
including
theinstant motionsandtrial.
III.
The
Motion
To
Quash
Judge
Lavin's
T.R.O.
Is An
invalid
Reconsideration
Motion
Judge Lavin issued a T.R.O. to prevent the transfer of the registrations of the U.R.L.sat
issue.
A hearing on
a
preliminary
injunction
was scheduled and continued
indefinitely.
Mr.
Weberman challengestheT.R.O. with arguments seemingly takingtheposition thatit
should
never have been issued.
All
reconsideration motions
are
governed
by
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
§
1008.
See
CodeofCivil Procedure§
1008(h).
Toseek reconsideration,themotion mustbe filed
within
10
days. Code of Civil Procedure §
1008(a).
Moreover, the motion must be "based
uponnew
or
different
facts, circumstances, or law. Code of
Civil
Procedure § 1008(a). Finally, it
must
be
made
"to the
same judge
or
court that made
the
order." Code
of
Civil
Procedure
§
1008(a). The instant motion
fails
to satisfy any of these standards.
IV.
The
Motion
ToDismissIs a
Disguised,
Defective
Summary
Judgment Motion
Mr.
Weberman advances a motion to dismiss based on his declaration. The movingpapers
fail
to
identify
any procedural method to advance such a motion. The summaryjudgment procedure
is the
only
way to
bring
a
pre-trial dispositive motion thats seek
to
assert
facts.
See
Code of
Civil
Procedure §
437c.
The instant motion
fails
to satisfy the procedural
requirements of a
summary judgment motion, both
in
form
and
timing.OPPOSITION
TO
MOTION
TO
VACATE
DEFAULT
2
 
I"
14
O
co
%
O^
£
CO
ri
J
O
81
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1314
15
16
17
1819
2021
22
23
2425262728
V.
Conclusion
For the
reasons stated above,
the
instant motion should
be
denied.Dated: October
3
, 20
1
2
Gary Kurtz,
Esq.
Attorney
in pro per
OPPOSITION
TO
MOTION
TO
VACATE
DEFAULT
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->