Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply for Remand & Strike

Reply for Remand & Strike

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by sam_salmon

More info:

Published by: sam_salmon on May 12, 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

10/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Reply to Defendants Opposition toRemand
Page 1 of 5
Case No. 2:10-CV-00446-RMP
Salmon Residence917C Philpott Rd.Colville, WA 99114Telephone: 509-684-884112345678910111213141516171819202122232425
 Samuel Salmon Judge Rosanna Malouf PetersonRoxy SalmonSalmon Residence917C Philpott Rd.Colville, WA 99114Telephone: 509-684-8841Email: srslunop@gmail.comUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SPOKANESamuel Salmon and Roxy Salmon,Plaintiff,vs.Bank of America, Recontrust, MERS,Merscorp Inc.,Defendant))))))))))))Case No. 2:10-CV-00446-RMPREPLY TO DEFENDANTSOPPOSITION TO REMAND ANDSTRIKE
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMAND
1.
 
Lane Powell suggests that the defendants Bank of America
et al
, arediverse in their citizenship, and cites United Computer Systems, Inc. v. AT& T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2002), to support their claim. In thisdecision, the following is stated, which shows this decision to be irrelevantto this case for diversity purposes:a.
 
“A court is to consider a number of factors, including "location of employees, tangible property, production activities, sources of 
 
 
Reply to Defendants Opposition toRemand
Page 2 of 5
Case No. 2:10-CV-00446-RMP
Salmon Residence917C Philpott Rd.Colville, WA 99114Telephone: 509-684-884112345678910111213141516171819202122232425
income, and where sales take place." Id.; see also Albino, 349 F.Supp. 2d at 1337.2.
 
The defendants are established businesses in this state with their UBInumbers listed. The defendants with their buildings and employees, etc.,are operating and sustaining a substantial amount of business revenue inthis state of Washington.3.
 
Salmons understood that the “citizenship of defendants sued underfictitious names” was referring to the registration of fictitious names as in abusiness name or a corporation which is filed under a “fictitious name” andoffers protection as a “corporate veil” or for all corporate officers listedunder this fiction.
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
LANE POWELL FAILS TO QUALIFY AS THEDEFENDANTS’ REPRESENTATIVESalmons believe the more important issue here is the qualification of LanePowell as the defendants’ legal representative. Due to the apparent missingpower of attorney for each of the defendants Lane Powell has represented,Salmons rightfully question the real legal authority Lane Powell has inappearing for their alleged clients.THEREFORE, it is the Salmons business to know if Lane Powell is indeed thedefendants’ “attorney in fact” for the following reasons:1.
 
Lane Powell’s alleged client, Bank of America NA has brought upfoundational evidence showing they are not a real party in interest. Lane
 
 
Reply to Defendants Opposition toRemand
Page 3 of 5
Case No. 2:10-CV-00446-RMP
Salmon Residence917C Philpott Rd.Colville, WA 99114Telephone: 509-684-884112345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Powell has been unresponsive, and has offered no defense for thedefendant’s position regarding this.2.
 
The specific subject matter revealing the lack of the defendants’standing as a “party in interest” in Exhibit (G) is prima facie evidencefor this case.3.
 
The list of citations that Lane Powell provided in their response has todo with appearance issues, which are not specifically to the subjectmatter of actually qualifying the counsel as the “attorney in fact.”4.
 
Lane Powell has voiced its distain of the decision to Grant theEXPEDITED ORDER to hear this valid Motion to Strike, referring toproducing the power of attorney. This is herein dully noted when theundersigned John S. Devlin stated:a.
 
“It is unimaginable that such a novel argument would be takenseriously in this Court.”, Lane Powell’s Remand Opposition page 6line 13, 14.b.
 
As pro se litigants the Salmons find this remark to be unfortunateand dishonorable to the justice system, and the obvious lawsregarding the nature of this action requiring the production of thesenecessary documents.5.
 
It appears the undersigned John S. Devlin’s conduct in this matter, is inviolation of LR 83.2(f).

You're Reading a Free Preview

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