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