Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion to Reconsider Decision of 4 Discovery Motions

Motion to Reconsider Decision of 4 Discovery Motions

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26 |Likes:
Published by Lee Perry
Motion for court to reconsider its decision of the hearing of April 18. At that hearing all 4 motions of Plaintiff to deem admitted or compel further discovery responses were denied by the Court without comment.
Motion for court to reconsider its decision of the hearing of April 18. At that hearing all 4 motions of Plaintiff to deem admitted or compel further discovery responses were denied by the Court without comment.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Lee Perry on May 27, 2013
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

12/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al
Case # MSC10-02914
 Page 1Motion for Reconsideration Re: Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions Heard April 18, 2013
 
Leighton Lee Perry6724 Waverly RoadMartinez, Ca 94553Phone (925) 949-8377Email: LL_Perry@att.net
Plaintiff 
 Pro Se
 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
LEIGHTON LEE PERRY,Plaintiff,vs.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; CHASE HOMEFINANCE LLC; FEDERAL NATIONALMORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; QUALITY LOANSERVICE CORP.; and all persons unknown,claiming any legal or equitable right, title estate, lienor interest in the property described in this Complaintadverse to Plaintiffs’ title thereto and as DOES 1-100, Inclusive
,Defendant.Case No.
MSC10-02914
 
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S AMENDEDMOTIONS TO1)
 
COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS, AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIALINTERROGATORIES FROM JP MORGANCHASE BANK NA AND FEDERALNATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION(SET 2); AND FROM QUALITY LOANSERVICE CORP (SET 1)2)
 
ORDER ADMISSIONS DEEMEDADMITTED FROM FEDERAL NATIONALMORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (SET 2);REQUEST FOR SANCTIONSMEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES
Judge: Hon. Laurel S. BradyDept: 31Date: 9:00 a.m.
 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please take notice that on _____________, 2013, at 9:00 AM or as soon thereafter as the mater may be heard, Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry will move the above entitled Court for relief from andreconsideration of the Judgment of the hearing on Plaintiff’s 4 discovery motions heard on April 18,2013, brought against Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (“JPMorgan”) including by merger 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al
Case # MSC10-02914
 Page 2Motion for Reconsideration Re: Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions Heard April 18, 2013
 
Chase Home Finance, LLC (“Chase”); Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”); and QualityLoan Service Corporation (“QLS”).This motion is based upon application of C.C.P. §1008 and §473 to the Court’s Order filed April26, 2013, to correct violations of jurisprudence, and is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, pleadings of Plaintiff’s 4 discovery motions heard April 18, 2013, the other  pleadings and matters on file or to be filed with the court in this action, matters of which the Court cantake judicial notice, and such other evidence and oral argument as is presented to the Court at thehearing thereon .
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.
 
INTRODUCTION
The decision rendered at the hearing of April 18, 2013, was not determined on any legal basisfound within the “four corners” of Plaintiff’s 4 discovery motions
1
which were originally served January25, 2013, to Defendants FNMA and JPMorgan, and February 6, 2013 to Defendant QLS. At thehearings of February 28, 2013 the court ordered parties to participate in the new ‘discovery facilitation’ program, even though the mandate to do so was weeks away and continued the motions to March 14,2013. During oral arguments at the hearing the Court Plaintiff’s question of why an unopposed motionneeded to go through facilitation was rebuffed by the Court. The Court did, however, respond toPlaintiff’s request, and by its order included the remaining Defendant, QLS, continued the hearings toApril 18, 2013, adjusted the hearing date for summary judgement by 3 weeks for a 6 week process, butrefused to continue the trial date requested by Plaintiff. On April 18, 2013, the amended discoverymotions of Plaintiff were heard, where the Court expressed a verbatim ruling crafted by Defendants’counsels that the Facilitator signed as a result of the facilitation meeting that all parties attended. Thetentative ruling presented the afternoon before the hearing stated that parties must appear and must meetand confer in person prior to court hearing. No transcript of the hearing is available.The Court filed a decision on April 26, 2013, and the postmark on the envelope sent to Plaintiff was stamped April 30, 2013.
1
Plaintiff’s (Amended) MTC Further RPD and Responses to FI and SI from FNMA (Set 2); (Amended) MTC Further RPDand Responses to FI and SI from JPMorgan (Set 2); (Amended) MTC Further RPD and Responses to FI and SI from QLS(Set 1); (unopposed) / (Amended) MDA Admissions from FNMA (Set 2)
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al
Case # MSC10-02914
 Page 3Motion for Reconsideration Re: Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions Heard April 18, 2013
 
II.
 
ARGUMENTA.
 
THE COURT’S ACTIONS IN THE MATTER CAUSED UNDUE SURPRISE TOPLAINTIFF
California Code of Civil Procedure §473(a) allows a court to “relieve a party or his or her legalrepresentative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her throughhis or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”. The Court’s failure to provide atentative ruling addressing the discovery issues beyond “meet and confer” before the hearing
2
was a proximate cause of surprise to Plaintiff. The court’s action placed an undue burden on Plaintiff todetermine how to prepare a defense, resulting in prejudicing his case. Plaintiff came to the hearingexpecting to argue discovery law, but was denied a hearing on the issues on the motions. Adopting the‘findings’ of the discovery facilitator violates the hearsay rule [Evid. Code §1200]. Aberrant behavior onthe part of the Court by enforcing an ‘agreement’ to which Plaintiff was not a party violates due process principles esteemed by the State Supreme Court and encourages further discovery ‘gamesmanship’ thehigh court abhors for the waste of court resources it causes.There is no public access to the history or reviews of facilitators, which puts a non-legal professional such as Plaintiff at further disadvantage. Choosing a facilitator that is unbiased toward
 pro se
parties has about the odds of a back alley crap shoot.
B.
 
THE COURT’S ACTIONS IN THE MATTER DID NOT ALLOW PRESENTATION OFAPPLICABLE LAW
California Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a) governs a party’s means to seek reconsideration of a court order, under the prerequisite of presenting “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” The purpose of C.C.P §1008 is “to restrict motions to reconsider to circumstances where a party offers thecourt some fact or authority that was not previously considered by it.”
Gilberd v. ACT Transit 
(1995) 32Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.Furthermore, “the specificity of a rule of civil procedure is one factor to be considered indetermining the flexibility accorded to
 pro se
litigants. See
 Lewis v. Faulkner 
, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7thCir.1982)”
3
. As a
 pro se
party Plaintiff cannot be expected to come to a hearing of undisclosed issuesand be able to plead case law. In this motion Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its Order of thehearing of April 18, 2013, in light of the following legal considerations.
2
The ruling simply read – “Parties must appear. Parties are ordered to meet and confer in person prior to Court hearing.”
3
See
 Bates v. Jean
, 745 F.2d 1150 (7th Cir. 1984)

You're Reading a Free Preview

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