Elena Gross47822 Belvedere WayIndio CA 92201(760) 625 0518In pro per
STATE OF CALIFORNIAElena Gross Plaintiff ))) CLAIM against a Judicial entityvs )) Complaint : IND 098669) RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT1. Tiffany Tsai individually and ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDin her capacity as Mediator/Evaluator )for the Riverside Superior Court ) $ unlimited claim for unquantifiabledamages )2. Irma Asberry, individually and in her ) damagesorganizational capacity as Judge for )Riverside Superior Court. )3. Defendants DOES 1-100 are employees, )Judicial officers, Dispute resolution staff, )and other employees employed with the )Riverside Superior Court) )))(DOES 1-100) Defendants ) ____________________________________ )COMPLAINT FOR EVENTS OCCURING BETWEEN December 18 2010-February 2011
Plaintiff in accordance with Government Code Section 910.4 submits a claim against a judicial entity for eventsoccurring between December 18
th
2010 and February 2011. A prior claim was filed on December 18
th
, 2010 andan application for leave to file a late complaint for events occurring between November 6
th
2009- June 18
th
2010was received by the Court executive officer on January 26
th
2011 at 9.10 am.
I. PARTIES
1.Plaintiff Elena Gross is an individual and permanent resident of the United States and resident of theState of California.
2.Defendant Tiffany Tsai is an evaluator/mediator Riverside County in the Riverside Superior Court,South West Justice Center Murietta branch.3.Defendant Judge Irma Asberry is a judge who has acted in the capacity of judge in the RiversideSuperior Court.4.Defendants DOES 1-100 are employees, (Judicial officers, Dispute resolution staff, and other employeesemployed with the Riverside Superior Court)
II. STATEMENT OF INDIVIDAL FACTS ELENA GROSS
•
On the 6
th
of October 2009,Timothy Gross initiated divorce proceedings against Elena Gross with asummons and dissolution of marriage petition, (exhibit I refers to the Internal Court record)).
•
A request for temporary restraining order was granted on 10/20/2009 amended on 10/22/2009 based onan incorrect name of a minor child that was filed in the first restraining order. The restraining order wasgranted as there was evidence of abuse and past history of abuse. The restraining order was denied onthe 16thof November 2009 based on an incorrect police report that was amended on the 24thof December 2009 . Commissioner Lawrence P. Best read the transcript of the dispatch phone call of theinitial police report but it was not entered into evidence at the hearing (exhibit 1 transcript of hearing).
•
The Exparte Motion for custody, visitation and support filed on 11/06/2009 was denied on 11/09/2009 byCommissioner Best during the restraining order although no child support or spousal support had beengranted during the restraining order and Timothy Gross had depleted the joint bank account in retaliationfor the restraining order and Elena Gross had no income at the time. Elena Gross had provided proof of Plaintiff's considerable history of undocumented income in the request for an Exparte (exparte11/6/2009). The Court denied Exparte hearings and did not set Exparte hearing dates in contradiction tothe Riverside Superior Court local rules of Court
5.0065 which states “
Whenever possible, in lieu of an ex parte order, the court will issue orders shortening time and set the matter for hearing on the regular family law motion calendar. Requests for orders shortening time and supporting declarations must setforth the necessity for an order shortening the time for service and hearing.”, (exhibit 2)
•
On the 20
th
of November 2009, a mediation conference was held between both parties although ElenaGross requested a separate mediation hearing due to domestic violence. At the hearing Mr. TimothyGross submitted a written statement to Emelinda McGinnis not contained in the court file prior tomediation stating that Elena Gross was delusional and suffered from delusions and that the joint familyhome was going into foreclosure and the utilities would be shut off. All material facts that wereincorrect. Eleminda McGinnis accepted the document although it was not contained in the court file
prior to mediation and had not been served on the other party prior to mediation.
•
A custody order was made on the 1stof December 2009, based on the recommendations of mediator Emelinda McGinnis (exhibit 3). Emelinda McGinnis referred to her own “observations “and the wishesoff Mr. Gross and recommended that a primary caregiver of two children should be restricted to seeingher children for 4 days out of a 30 day month and that before any changes in custody or parenting can bemade that the mother has to undergo A psychological evaluation.
•
Emelinda McGinnis ignored the domestic abuse and alcoholism of Timothy Gross and placed custodywith Mr. Gross despite the mother having sole custody during a restraining order where Mr. Gross hadno visitation to the minor children.
•
The meditation recommendation was adopted by Commissioner Best on the 1
st
of December 2009 andthe minutes of the custody order specify joint legal and joint physical custody to Timothy and ElenaGross,(exhibit 4). A 730 was struck for both parties, and Elena Gross was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation even though Commissioner Best knew that Elena Gross had no income asCommissioner Best was concerned for the Cost of the evaluation for Timothy Gross. Commissioner Bestignored the history of Timothy Gross' substance abuse and domestic abuse (exhibit5 transcript of hearing) and there was no basis for the psychological evaluation except Plaintiff's hearsay statementsagainst Respondent. The current custody order specifies that a primary caregiver is limited to seeing theminor children 4 days out of a 30 day month and that a severely limited Holiday schedule listing hours islisted as :Easter Sunday, July 4th, Halloween, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.The hours on those days are allocated based on odd and even years. There is no further holiday schedulespecified as Timothy Gross denies and frustrates all contact with the minor children.
•
The custody order was based on the recommendation of Emelinda McGinnis, where the proposed order was prepared and signed by mediator Emelinda McGinnnis (exhibit 4A).
•
Mediation confidentiality is codified in Evidence Code section 1115 et seq. This evidentiary restriction isnot limited to those communications made " 'in the course of ... mediation. [Citation.]' " (
Rojas v.Superior Court
(2004), 33 Cal.4th, 407, at p. 417; 15 Cal. Rptr 3rd 643.) Rather, as delineated inEvidence Code section 1119, the restriction applies to any written or oral communication made "for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation," as well as all"communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of amediation or a mediation consultation ... ." (§ 1119.) Section 1119 also makes such evidence not subjectto discovery. Evidence Code section 1121 also places restrictions on the use of a mediator's reports,assessments, evaluations, recommendations, or findings by the mediator. These items may not besubmitted to a court or other adjudicative body absent consent of the parties in writing to the
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
