Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TAITZ v DUNN - Opposition to Motion to Compel by Dunn

TAITZ v DUNN - Opposition to Motion to Compel by Dunn

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,096 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
Opposition to Motion to Compel Deposition
Opposition to Motion to Compel Deposition

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Mar 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
Charles H Bell, Jr. (SBN 060553)Brian T. Hildreth (SBN 213141)BELL, McANDREWS, & HILTACHK, LLP455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600Sacramento, California 95814Telephone: (916) 442-7757Facsimile: (916) 442-7759Attorneys for Defendant,DAMON DUNNSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ORANGECENTRAL JUSTICE CENTERDR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ,Contestant,v.DAMON DUNN and DOES 1 through 18,Defendants.Case No. 30-2010-00381664
DATE: March 14, 2011TIME: 2:00 p.m.DEPT.: C33JUDGE: Hon Geoffrey T. GlassContest Filed: June 17, 2010
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
Defendant DamonDunn hereby Opposes Contestant Orly Taitz’s purported Motion to Compel Deposition Subpoena(“Motion”) based on the grounds that Contestant failed to timely file her Motion at least 16 courtdays prior to the scheduled hearing set by Contestant. Defendant also opposes Contestant’sMotion on the grounds that she failed to provide notice of her Motion to Defendant. (Defendantonly recently learned of Contestant’s Motion by viewing the Court’s website and prepared thisOpposition as soon as possible thereafter.)Defendant further requests this Court award attorney’s fees and/or sanctions to Defendantin an amount of $2,080.00, for time spent opposing Contestant’s Motion, and the anticipated oralargument related thereto.In support of this Opposition, Defendant submits the following Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities and the separate Declaration of Brian T. Hildreth.
In reviewing the Court’s docket relative to this case on Thursday, March 10, 2011,Counsel for Defendant observed that Contestant has purportedly filed a Motion to Compel and seta hearing date for her Motion on Monday, March 14, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in this Court.Contestant’s Motion to Compel should be summarily denied because Contestant failed totimely file her Motion at least 16 court days prior to the hearing, and also failed to provide noticeto Defendant of the Motion, as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure.Because Contestant pursued her Motion in blatant violation of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant should be awarded monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,080.00 orother such amount as the Court may deem proper.
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 Counsel for Defendant Damon Dunn (“Defendant” or“Dunn”) reviewed the on-line docket for the present case. (See Declaration of Brian T. Hildreth(“Hildreth Decl.”), ¶ 2.) In viewing the docket, Counsel for Defendant became aware that
Opposition to Contestant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
Contestant Orly Taitz (“Contestant”) had purportedly filed a Motion to Compel and set a hearingdate for said Motion on Monday, March 14, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in this Court. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 2,and Exhibit A thereto.)The Orange County Superior Court file-stamp displayed on Contestant’s “Notice of Motion to Compel” shows that the Motion apparently was filed on February 18, 2011. (HildrethDecl., ¶¶ 2, 3, and Exhibit A thereto.) The notice was not signed by Contestant, or anyone else.(
.)March 14 is only 15 court days after the purported filing of Contestant’s Motion.Monday, February 21 was a court holiday in observance of President’s Day. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 4,and Exhibit B thereto.) Thus, Tuesday, February 22, 2011 would have been the first court dayfollowing the filing of the Motion, and March 15 would have been the earliest this Court couldhear the matter (without an affirmative order by the Court otherwise).Contestant’s Proof of Service accompanying her Motion to Compel states that Contestantserved the present Motion to Compel on Counsel for Defendant on August 30, 2010. However,no notice of the present Motion was ever received by Counsel for Defendant Dunn fromContestant. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 5.) Counsel for Defendant also received no service copy of thepresent Motion. (Hildreth Decl., ¶ 6.)
LEGAL ARGUMENTA. Contestant’s Motion to Compel is Improperly Before the Court As It Was Not FiledAt Least 16 Court Days Prior to the Scheduled Hearing of March 14.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 provides that in connection with amotion before the court, “all moving and supporting papers shall be filed…at least
16 court days
before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §1005(b) (emphasis added).) California Code of Civil Procedure Section 12 provides that the “time in which any act provided by law is to be doneis computed by excluding the first day, and including the last.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §12.)Contestant purportedly filed her Motion on Friday, February 18, 2011, which is only 15court days before the noticed hearing of March 14, 2011, due to the intervening court holiday in

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
jqudee_105086028 liked this
silverbull8 liked this
lisaliberi5222 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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