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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 74 - Conmditional request to vacate motion filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.74.0

LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - 74 - Conmditional request to vacate motion filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry - Gov.uscourts.cacd.484804.74.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 336|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
03/18/2011 74 Conmditional request to vacate motion filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz Inc re: MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff 50[RECAP] , Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 65[RECAP] , MOTION to Strike in Part Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Orly Taitz, Inc. and Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filings appearing as Docket Entry No.'s 24,27, 30, 38, 38-1, 42,43, and 46 53[RECAP] , Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112), Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112) 55[RECAP] , First MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff 42 , First MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff Amended motion 46[RECAP] , Memorandum in Support of Motion 54[RECAP] (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
03/18/2011 74 Conmditional request to vacate motion filed by Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Orly Taitz Inc re: MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff 50[RECAP] , Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 65[RECAP] , MOTION to Strike in Part Defendants Appealing Dentistry, Orly Taitz, Inc. and Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. filings appearing as Docket Entry No.'s 24,27, 30, 38, 38-1, 42,43, and 46 53[RECAP] , Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112), Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G-112) 55[RECAP] , First MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff 42 , First MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff Amended motion 46[RECAP] , Memorandum in Support of Motion 54[RECAP] (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Mar 18, 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

03/20/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 Orly Taitz, inc and "Appealing Dentistry" conditional request to vacate 112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ SB#22343329839 SANTA MARGARITA PKWYRANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688, STE 100PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603Attorney FOR "DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS" FOUNDATION,ORLY TAITZ, INC, "APPEALING DENTISTRY"CHARLES LINCOLN,PLAINTIFF,VS.DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL,et alDEFENDANT))))))))))CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-01573-AG
DEFENDANTS’ ORLY TAITZ INC
AND APPEALING DENTISTRYCONDITIONAL REQUEST TOVACATE MOTION FOR SANCTIONSDate: March 21, 2011Time: 10 AM Hon Andrew Guilford Courtroom 10D
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Defendants Orly Taitz, inc and Appealing Dentistry (collectively
“Defendants”) are
filing this
conditional request to vacate
motion for sanctions against CharlesLincoln, Philip J. Berg and Gary KreepThe court was very generous with the Plaintiff in this action, Charles Lincoln. In spite of the factthat the court found no jurisdiction in Federal court and no value in 12 out of 13 causes of actionand dismissed all but one minor state cause of action, the court gave the plaintiff an extra monthto file a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint was not filed.
Thedefense wanted to remind the court that the remaining cause of action against one defendant OrlyTaitz for quantum meruit is for $47,000 amount, which is less than $75,000 required to maintaina legal action in the federal court. Though the defense argues that Plaintiff was paid for the
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 74 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1605
 
 Orly Taitz, inc and "Appealing Dentistry" conditional request to vacate 212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
services he provided, that the amount he claims of $47,000 is an outrageous invented numberand the Plaintiff actually owes the Defendants a full refund and damages for tremendous damagethe Plaintiff caused the Defendants, even if the court would put all of these arguments aside andrules solely on the amount claimed in the First Amended Complaint and assumes as true theallegation by the Plaintiff, that the defendant owes him $47,000, it is still below $75,000 requiredto maintain a legal action in the Federal court and the
court is simply without jurisdiction tomaintain this action any further.
Considering highly offensive nature of the complaint,maintaining it, only serves as further harassment and causes tremendous emotional distress.Additionally, while the Plaintiff claimed hardship in denial of Pro Hac Vice for PA attorneyPhilip Berg, the Defense wanted to remind the court that The Plaintiff, himself is an attorney.Even though he is disbarred, he can represent himself, he has necessary education, as he is agraduate of the University of Chicago 1992, has nearly 20 years of experience and he maintainedsome 70 legal actions in Federal courts, where he was a party. Plaintiff filed his complaint andFirst Amended Complaint
pro se,
as he believed that he does not need another attorney and hewas capable to file a second amended complaint by the deadline of March 16, 2011 ordered bythe court. Additionally, the Plaintiff still has his local attorney Gary Kreep and he could getassistance of Philip Berg in drafting and assistance of Gary Kreep in drafting and filingelectronically. There was no excuse or justification for the Plaintiff not to file the secondamended complaint.If the court decides sua sponte to dismiss this case under 41B and 12 B(1) and 12B(6) beforeMarch 21, 2011 motion hearing, than the motions become moot and the defense does not wishto waste the time of the court any further with motions. If the court does not dismiss this casebefore March 21, 2011 motion hearing, than the defense is ready to argue on it's opposition toMotion to Strike filed by the Plaintiff and argue it's own motion for sanctions against thePlaintiff, his former attorney Philip J. Berg and his local attorney Gary Kreep.Respectfully submitted/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ03.18.2011
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 74 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1606

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)//-->