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
LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 38 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.38.0

LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 38 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.38.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 51 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
01/31/2011 38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP, response to motion to dismiss Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 33 , MOTION to Strike in Part Defendnts Appealing Dentistry, Orly Taiz, Inc. and Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., January 9, 2011 Filing, Docket Entry No. 24 and their Request for Judicial Notice filed January 15, 2011, Docket Entry No. 26 in its Enti 32 , Response in Opposition to Motion 34 filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz Inc. Motion set for hearing on 3/7/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12.27.2011 Defendants' opposition to exparte motion to shorten time, # 2 Exhibit order by Judge Guillford denying ex-parte motuion to shorten time)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
01/31/2011 38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Motion to strike, opposition to AntiSLAPP, response to motion to dismiss Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 33 , MOTION to Strike in Part Defendnts Appealing Dentistry, Orly Taiz, Inc. and Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., January 9, 2011 Filing, Docket Entry No. 24 and their Request for Judicial Notice filed January 15, 2011, Docket Entry No. 26 in its Enti 32 , Response in Opposition to Motion 34 filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz Inc. Motion set for hearing on 3/7/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12.27.2011 Defendants' opposition to exparte motion to shorten time, # 2 Exhibit order by Judge Guillford denying ex-parte motuion to shorten time)(Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Feb 01, 2011
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

02/03/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 Defendants' motion to strike 112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ SB#22343329839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWYRANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688, STE 100PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603 Attorney FOR DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION,ORLY TAITZ INC, APPEALING DENTISTRYCHARLES LINCOLN,PLAINTIFF, VS.DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL,et alDEFENDANT))))))))))CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-01573-AG
DEFENDANTS’DEFEND OUR 
FREEDOMS FOUNDATION, ORLYTAITZ INC AND APPEALINGDENTISTRY NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKEDate: March 7Time: 10 AM Hon Andrew Guilford Courtroom 10D
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Defendants Defend Our FreedomsFoundation, Orly Taitz, inc and Appealing Dentistry
(collectively “Defendants”)
are filing this notice ofmotion and motion to strike the following pleadings bythe Plaintiff:Document #32 Notice of motion to strikeDocument #33 Opposition to AntiSLAPPDocument #34 Response to 12(b)6 motionPlaintiff in this case filed his legal action on10.15.2010
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1019
 
 Defendants' motion to strike 212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Motion to dismiss was filed on 11.13.2010.Motion hearing was scheduled for 01.10.2011.Ten days after the Plaintiff had to respond to motionto dismiss his case, without any meet and confer thePlaintiff filed an ex-parte, demanding extra time, eventhough the Plaintiff used to be an attorney and knewthat he was supposed to answer timely or at leastrequest an extension timely.This court was very generous with the Plaintiff andgranted his motion the same day and gave him over amonth of extra time and rescheduled the 01.10.2011hearing for 02.14.2011.On 01.25.2011 The Plaintiff filed a second ex partemotion, demanding to shorten the time for thedefendants to respond.The defendants had to stay overnight and draft aresponse to the second ex-parte. The defendants arguedthat there was no justification to grant thePlaintiff's motion. Exhibit 1 Defendants opposition toEx-parteToday the Defendants received the ruling from thisCourt, agreeing with the Defendants and denying thePlaintiff's motion. Exhibit 2. Your Honor's Order,denying the Plaintiff's motion to shorten the time forthe defendant's to respond.Today the defendants received via ECF three pleadingsfrom the Plaintiff, all of which were filed late andall of which De facto shortened the Defendants time to
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1020
 
 Defendants' motion to strike 312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
respond, in reality giving the defendants no time torespond.The Plaintiff acted in bad faith and violated Localrules 6 and 7 .
 Additionally, the plaintiff violated the order of this court expressly denying his ex-parte motion to shorten the time available for the Defendantsto respond.
L.R. 7-9 Opposing Papers.
5
Each opposing party shall, notlater than ten (10) days after service of the motion in theinstance of a new trial motion and not later than twenty-one (21)days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion inall other instances, serve upon all other parties and file with theClerk either (a) the evidence upon which the opposing party willrely in opposition to the motion and a brief but completememorandum which shall contain a statement of all the reasonsin opposition thereto and the points and authorities upon whichthe opposing party will rely, or (b) a written statement that thatparty will not oppose the motion. Evidence presented in allopposing papers shall comply with the requirements of L.R. 7-6,7-7 and 7-8.According to the local rule 7-9 the opposing pleadings aresupposed to be served on the opposing party at least 21 daysbefore the hearing. The reply is due 14 days before the hearing.The Defendants were served today with the pleadings for threemotions:
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 38 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1021

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)//-->