You are on page 1of 35

KEEGAN V.

QUARLE A150642

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
A 150642
(Superior Court Case RG15796301)

MEAGHAN KEEGAN

Plaintiff/Appellant

v.

MARCIA QUARLE and DANIEL KANER

Defendants/Respondents
________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF


ALAMEDA. CASE NO RG15796301. THE HONORABLE
JUDGE JULIA SPAIN, DEPARTMENT 19

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OR DIRECT CORRECTION OR


REVISION OF NONCONFORMING OPENING BRIEF AND SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM

MARCIA QUARLE
651 ADDISON STREET, SUITE 210
BERKELEY, CA 94710
paralegal2@me.co
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

GARY LEE SHERRER, ESQ.


875 A ISLAND DRIVE, POB 403
ALAMEDA, CA 94592
sherrlaw@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MEAGHAN KEEGAN

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 1 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OR DIRECT CORRECTION


OR REVISION OF NONCONFORMING BRIEF
A150642

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE


JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE

Respondent Marcia Quarle hereby moves this Court for an

order striking Appellants Opening Brief filed on August 2, 2017.

This motion is made on the ground that the brief and the RJN fail

to conform to the California Rules of Court in that it fails to

support references to the appellate record with citations to the

volume and page number of the record where the matter appears,

in violation of California Rule of Court 8.204(a)(1)(c).

In the alternative Respondent and Defendant Marcia Quarle

hereby moves this court for an order that Appellants Opening

Brief filed on August 2, 2017, be returned for correction by

revision or replacement as to the whole thereof.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 2 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

The problem is that there are numerous references to

matters purportedly in the appellant record without support by

citation to the volume and page number of the record where the

matter appears, thereby violating California Rule of Court 8.2014

(a)(1)(c).

Keegans AOB repeatedly claims appellant objected to the

sua sponte dismissal of her lawsuit. The only evidence in the

record that has anything at all to do with her attorneys purported

objections is a brief two line email between Gary Lee Sherrer,

Quarle and Judge Spains Clerk prior to the 1/26/17 hearing.

This is a judgment roll appeal without a Reporters Transcript.

Keegans assertion that her counsel had objected and that there

was no advance notice that her case could be dismissed is utterly

lacking in support and in merit. The suggestion that the trial

court was under some obligation to inform Gary Sherrer of his

right to file a motion for reconsideration lacks merit. It has long

been held that counsel is presumed to know the law. (King v.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 3 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Superior Court (1936) 12 Cal. App. 2d 501. The record

demonstrates that Sherrer was aware, well in advance of the

hearing, that the case could be dismissed. It is the appellants

burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error. Keegan

has failed in that burden by failing to provide any evidence that

there was no proper notice in advance and an opportunity to be

heard. Keegan had disobeyed three prior discovery orders.

Quarle had filed two Motions for Terminating Sanctions.

This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of

points and authorities and on the Appellants Opening Brief on

file herein.

Date: August 6, 2017

By: ___________________

MARCIA QUARLE /s/

Attorney for Respondent/ Defendant


Email: paralegal2@me.com
Telephone: 510 621 9225

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 4 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

INTRODUCTION

On 9/09/09 Judge Dawn Girard denied Keegans Petition for

an Order Prohibiting Harassment in Keegan v. Quarle 1, Case

BG0969911 This appeal is part of a long nine-year series of legal

maneuvers to harass Marcia Quarle. The case resembles Keown v.

Trudo (1925) where the plaintiff engaged in various procedural

machinations including inordinately delayed filings, untimely

requests for relief, implausible denials of notice and papers filled

with manifest inaccuracies and contradictions. Quarle via a

separate motion will file for sanctions for prosecuting a second

frivolous appeal. On 9/15/15 the DCA issued a Remittiur in favor

of Quarle in A144976 Keegan v. Quarle III when Keegan appealed

the denial of her Motion For a New Trial, filed on 11/10/14 by Paul

Raymond Turley Esq. who was ineligible to practice law on

11/10/14 in Keegan v. Quarle II, Case RG10-537233.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 5 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

The motion of Respondent and Defendant MARCIA

QUARLE for leave to strike Appellant Meaghan Keegans Opening

Brief, or alternatively to return the brief for correction by revision

or replacement are based on the same factual and legal basis.

Respondent will therefor discuss these as a single matter to

facilitate brevity.

Violations of Rules of Court

Rules of Court require litigants to support any reference to a

matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number

of the record where the matter appears. Thus stating facts,

without providing any record cite, or citing to only a document

rather than a page violates this rule. See Evans v. Centerstone

Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 151 where [ plaintiffs

repeatedly cite to 170 pages of their motion to vacate without

directing us to specific pages] Evans; Sections of the statements

of facts in AOB include no record citations at all. When a litigant

repeatedly provides no page citations to the record, the rule

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 6 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

violation is egregious and significantly burdens the opposing

party and the court. (Evans, supra, pp. 166-167).

In the AOB, Keegans brief totals 23 pages (7 of which a

TOAs) . The AOB provides only two citations on page 11 and 12

to emails in CT0043 to CT0045, to the emails of 1/26/17. Instead

the brief provides citations such as see operative complaint, CT

pages CT001 to CT0012. She does say that the Court ordered the

matter stayed until Appellant exhausted collection efforts in

RG10537233 and asks the court to see pages CT0011 through

CT0030. This provides little help in analyzing the merit of the

challenged decision.

At the hearing, counsel for Keegan, Gary Lee Sherrer, a

criminal attorney who admitted he is usually paid $75-$105 an

hourwho signed the AOB and presumable drafted them

admitted in his EOT that he was still reviewing the record and

that the person (ie. Craig Rawson) who was assisting him was

ill. Even a first time appellate lawyer is expected to read and

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 7 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

comply with the Rules of Court. Sherrers transgressions are

inexcusable. The appellate court is not required to search the

record on its own seeking error. (Del Real v.City of Riverside

(2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 761. Nor does Keegan elaborate on why

her UFTA complaint was viable.

Also the fraudulent transfer statutes do not authorize

attorney fees or punitive damages. And to make matters worse

the Original Complaint failed to name the transferee, Daniel

Kaner, in her critical first cause of action for UFTA See CT003)

On 11/3/16 the Court granted Quarle's Motion To Compel

but denied Quarles request for Terminating Sanctions. The order

stated Keegan is hereby ordered yet again to provide responses to

all special interrogatories and RPDs at issue in the original motion

to compel set for hearing on May 26 and in the current motion

WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION. She failed to do so.

In the case of Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Assn v.

McMahon (Palacio VI) Judge Ikola concluded that Palacio could

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 8 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

not recover its attorney fees as compensatory damages under the

UFTA and Civ.Code section 3439.07(a)(3) does not authorize the

recovery of fees because applicable rules of civil procedure

include the American rule requiring each side to bear his own

costs unless a statute specifically provides otherwise. Nothing in

the UFTA specifically proves for attorney fee recovery.

Also in Opposition to Quarles Memorandum of Costs ,

KEEGAN admitted that UFTA did not authorize attorney fees and

that there is no contract between the parties that authorizes

attorney fees.

No disrespect intended but judges are not like pigs, hunting

for truffles buried in briefs. United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d

955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991). The appellate process is already an uphill

battle and presenting the court with a brief that is noncompliant

with court rules makes it even harder. In this case Appellant and

her attorney, Gary Lee Sherrer, are egregiously noncompliant with

court rules.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 9 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Of course, courts are reluctant to strike briefs and dismiss

appeals but they are less reluctant to take other actions such as

striking portions of a brief when the brief includes facts that are

not part of the record. In Doppes v. Bentley Motors Inc. (2009)

the court declined to consider paragraphs in the statement of facts

without record citations. In some instances the appellate court

will allow an attorney to correct deficiencies in the brief but

depending on the errors, the option of correction the brief is left

to the discretion of the court. In Keegans AOB she makes

multiple misstatements of fact. For example: on page 8 , second

paragraph INTRODUCTION Appellant states: Please see the

operative Complaint which is contained in the Clerks transcript

at pages CT001-CT0012. This is not the Operative Complaint,

this is the Original Complaint. Also the court did not order

Quarle to pay the judgment in full on 1/26/17 and Gary Lee

Sherrer never objected in writing to the Order of 1/26/17. A

party is bound by the record and may not raise new additional

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 10 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

matters for the first time in an appeal. Also the mystery as to

Keegans assertion that she is entitled to attorney fees and

punitive damages increases with the explanation. The AOB cites

CCP. 1033.5, 680 and 425.16 multiple times and claims Keegan

incurred over $70,000 prosecuting her UFTA lawsuit. Sherrer

also plagiarized verbatim pages 17 18, and 19 from a recent

Opinion. Pages 17, 18 and 19 are copied, entirely and verbatim

from unacknowledged sources. This is unacceptable and

sanctionable. Such massive nearly verbatim copying of a

published writing without attribution in the main brief amounts

to a misrepresentation that violates ethical rules.

This is not the first time Gary Lee Sherrer has done this. His

lack of candor in identifying the source of pages 17, 18 and 19 and

his request for $70,000 worth of fees for defending a meritless

action and appeal is sanctionable. As Judge Posner said : what

makes plagiarism so potentially serious is that it may lead the

reader to take steps that he would not take if he knew the truth.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 11 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Because litigation places a premium on attorney honestly, the

candor and professionalism of counsel are serious issues.

APPELLANT FAILS TO CITE THE RECORD ON APPEAL

Respondent has counted more than 26 occasions in

Appellants Opening Brief where Appellant makes statements

regarding facts and orders without supporting citations to the

record in violation of California Rules of Court 8.204(a)(1)(c).

This rule apples whenever there is a reference to matter in the

record that appear in the opening brief. Doppes vs. Bentley

Motors Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 989.

This Rule applies whenever there is a reference to a

matter in the record that appears in the brief. Doppes v.

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967. While not

listing all examples 26 (twenty six) occasions where Keegan

makes statements regarding facts without support include

the following:
Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 12 A 150642
KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

1. Page 8, INTRODUCTION depriving Appellant of her

attorney fees and costs under CCP, Sections 1033.5, 680

et seq. and 425.16. Keegan repeats these inapplicable

block CCP sections Sections on pages 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14.

CCP 425.16 concerns an anti-SLAPP motion. There is no

anti-SLAPP motion in this lawsuit. While attorney fees/

costs are awardable to a prevailing SLAPP defendant ,

there was no anti-SLAPP motion filed in Case

RG15796301. Keegan never filed a noticed motion for

attorney fees in RG157963o01 or in RG10537233.

Furthermore any fees under CCP 680 would be untimely.

Keegan did not prevail in this lawsuit.

2. Page 8, second paragraph, in INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff also sued Daniel Kaner for aiding and abetting

the fraudulent transfer. Please see the operative (sic)

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 13 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

complaint which is contained in the Clerks transcript at

pages CT001 through CT0012. For the record there was a

1AC and a 2nd AC filed on 1/4/17. Gary Lee Sherrer

chose not to include the operative 2AC for unknown

reasons. Most of Keegans causes of action were

dismissed on demurrer.

3. Page 9, the invasion of privacy statutes provide for

attorney fees in civil actions for violations. Please see

Penal Code, section 637.2. For the record Keegan was

not awarded attorney fees or punitive damages. See

Statement of Decision of Judge Bereola in Case

RG10537233.

4. Page 9 once Plaintiff attempted to lien Quarles real

property with the judgment. For the record Keegan never

attempted to do any such thing. She was aware of the

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 14 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

transfer in 2010, more than five years before she filed her

lawsuit.

5. Page 9, post judgment, Kaner sold the property a third

party. The truth is Kaner sold the property on 8/31/12,

more than two years BEFORE KEEGAN obtained a

$6000 judgment. See Order of 1/26/17 that mentions sale

of the property and the Recorded Notarized Deed of Trust

of 8/31/12 showing a mortgage to Wells Fargo Bank in the

sum of $585,000.

6. Page 9, on 1/26/17 in email in advance of a discovery

hearing the trial court ordered (sic) Defendant to be

prepared to pay judgment in the underlying case in full.

The court did not order Quarle to bring money to the

hearing, Quarle voluntarily chose to do so.

7. Page 9, in PROCEDURAL HISTORY according to

public records on August 31, 2012 Defendant Daniel

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 15 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Kaner recorded a power of attorney. August 31, 2012

was also the date 105 Starview Court, Oakland was sold

to Dianne and Majeed Seifi for $751,000.

8. Page 9, Plaintiff objected, Quarle complied. For the

record Keegans claims of objection are NOT part of the

record. At no point did Gary Lee Sherrer file in writing

any objection to anything concerning the 1/26/17 Order.

Sherrers email to Department 19 is irrelevant to the

record.

9. Page 10, the trial courts order deprived Appellant of

Attorney fees and costs of collection in the underlying

caseover $70,0000 as well as punitive damages in the

instant action. Unbelievable to think that Keegan would

pay $70,000 to collect a $6000 judgment.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 16 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

10. Page 10 in Procedural History on September 9, 2010

Plaintiff sued Defendant Quarle for, inter alia, multiple

violations of Penal Code section 638 et seq. For the

record Keegans lawsuit was filed on 9/20/10 (not

9/9/10) and she never sued me for violation of PC 638. It

was PC 637.

11. Page 11, the underlying matter was not before the trial

court. plaintiff/Appellant objected to and contested the

TR and stated the basis for said objection and contest in

an email to the court. For the record there were 3

motions on calendar for 1/26/17. Quarles Motion to

Deem RFAs admitted and Quarles Motion for Discovery

Sanctions due to Keegans failure to comply with three (3)

prior discovery orders. Keegan never filed any noticed

Motion re RFAS. The only RFAs Keegan propounded

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 17 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

were filed and responded to by Quarle in May of 2016

before Gary Sherrer filed his SOA

12. page 11, the trial courts order deprived Appellant of

punitive damages as well as attorney fees and costs of

collection in the underlying case under CCP sections 1033,

680 et seq. and 425.16; over $70,000. The first time the

number $70,000 was mentioned is in this AOB. CCP

425.16 has noting to do with this lawsuit or the underlying

lawsuit.

13. Page 12, second paragraph, plaintiff brought two

discovery motions. Incorrect plaintiff brought one

motion to compel Quarles full account numbers.

14. Page 12, on the day of the hearing (1/26/17) the trial

court via email ordered (sic) Defendant/Appellee

Quarle to bring funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment in

the underlying matter. Please see Clerks Transcript page

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 18 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

CT0043. There was no such Order and it is not part of the

record and Keegan should be admonished for misleading

this court. These emails are not part of the record in this

lawsuit. However they are relevant because they show

that a 3rd person named Craig Ted Rawson, the subject of

an UPL complaint is the person who writes and directs

and the pleadings filed under Gary Lee Sherrers name.

Rawsons email address is skykicks@hot.mail.com." The

email from Judge Spains clerk Ana Liza Tumonong of

1/26/17 at 12:16 stated: the court expects you both to

appear today at 2:30 for the hearing and request Ms.

Quarle to bring the funds she has offered. Please confirm

receipt of this email. Sherrer is the subject of a State Bar

Complaint for back-dating discovery responses in this

case and for fee-splitting with Craig Ted Rawson.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 19 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

15. Page 12, first paragraph deprived Appellant of her

attorney fees and costs of collection in the underlying

action per CCP Sections 1033.5, 680 et seq. and 425.16

as well as punitive damages in the instant matter per Civil

Code section 3294. At the time of the trial courts order,

Plaintiff had expended over $70000 in the instant matter.

Untrue and questionable .

16. Page 13, the trial courts order deprived Appellant of a

viable complaint. It was not viable also Keegans failure

to include the Operative Second Amended Complaint in

the CT renders this issue moot. The CT does not contain

the operative Second Amended Complaint filed on 1/4/17.

17. page 14, section VII STANDARD OF REVIEW plaintiff

submits that the trial court acted in excess of its

jurisdiction in ordering Defendant to pay and plaintiff to

accept the judgment in the underlying action during a

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 20 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

hearing on discovery motions in the instant case

without advance notice of such an issue to be

addressed. Quarle had a pending motion for

terminating sanctions which provided Keegan months

of advance notice that her meritless lawsuit could be

dismissed. On November 22, 2016 Quarle filed a

noticed Motion for Terminating Sanctions. On 1/6/17

Quarle filed another Motion for Terminating Sanctions

pursuant to Reservation # 1813424. On 1/12/17

Sherrer filed an Opposition to Defendants ex-parte

affidavit for OSC re Contempt. On 1/17/17 Sherrer

filed a Declaration in Opposition to Defendants

Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

18. page 14, last paragraph: here Appellant submits that

the payment of the. Judgment in the underlying action

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 21 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

was not properly before the trial court such that the

trial court erred in making that order. This claim is

contradicted by Sherrers own email to Keegan and

Rawson on 1/26/17 wherein he cites the money owed

to Keegan. This claim is contradicted by Sherrers own

email of 1/26/17 at 1:01 PM to Keegan and Craig

Dawson (his ghostwriter) stating : so I am preparing

for drama at 2:30. We are entitled to the $6000 plus

post judgment interest at 10% per annum, should be

around $1250. (Gary Sherrer).

19. Page 16, last paragraph: fourth, plaintiff/Appellant

objected (sic) to the trial courts order ordering

Defendant/ Quarle to pay the judgment. For the

record there was no objection ever made by Gary Lee

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 22 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Sherrer. Sherrers email to Dept. 19 should not be part

of the record on appeal.

20. Page 17, Section IX The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion

in Ordering Dismissal of the Instant Action plaintiff

was not provided proper notice and an

opportunity to be heard regarding the trial courts

order to dismiss the instant action. Keegan has a history

and a pattern of claiming she was deprived of notice. In

a prior appeal, A 141938 Keegan vs. All California

Mortgage (Unpublished Opn. Trial Court MSC10-03266)

Keegan claimed she was not provided notice of the

1/29/14 Mandatory Settlement Conference where Judge

Craddick dismissed her cross-complaint against Bruce

Fonarow. The truth is on 1/29/14 she and the author of

all her pleadings, including this appeal, Craig Ted

Rawson, were together at Rawsons house discussing legal

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 23 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

strategy. Rawsons email address is

skykicks@hotmail.com See copies of the checks written

by Keegan on 1/29/14 and during all of January of 2014

proving that she was able to write, drive etc. For the

record Rawson is the ONLY person who objected to the

TR in an email to Keegan and Sherrer on 1/27/17 one day

AFTER the 1/26/17 hearing. (See CT page 0043) In this

case Keegan never filed any motion to set aside the

dismissal. She did not file any Motion for

Reconsideration. She did not file a motion to set aside the

dismissal. In A141938 the DCA ruled here the court

dismissed Keegans action without providing any kind of

prior notice. (See emails between Keegan, Rawson and

Sherrer, CT 0043. Rawson DBA PPSLLC, Professional

Paralegal Services LLC a suspended California LLC.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 24 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

21. In Keegan v. Quarle as in Keegan vs. ACM Keegan waived

her notice argument by failing to assert it in the trial

court. The DCA based on Keegans disputed claims of

being 24/7 disabled due to a stroke reversed the trial

courts order denying Keegans Motion to Set Aside in

A141938. This case is different. Sherrer was present at

the hearing. Keegans attorney had four days to file an

ex-parte motion for reconsideration. Keegans clear

misrepresentations to the DCA and the Trial Court are

well known. Most important her Notice Argument is

Barred because it was not raised in the trial court.

22. On page 17 in Section IX the Trial Court Abused Its

Discretion pages 17, 18 and 19, Gary Lee Sherrer repeats his

modus operandi of copying, plagiarizing verbatim from

Appellate Briefs without citation to the original source. Pages 17,

18, and 19 are copied verbatim from a recent Division Five

Opinion in the case of Jose Guzman vs. Evans Auto Care Inc et.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 25 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

al. B263378 Los Angeles County Superior Ct. No BC467035. In

Case RG15796301 Sherrer sought $10,200 in sanctions for

Quarles unsuccessful motion to declare Keegan a Vexatious

Litigant and he copied 8 pages verbatim the 2017 case of San

Diegans for Open Government vs. San Diego State. (2017

Certified Opinion Case D069189). In the AOB, there are (3) Three

pages copied verbatim from a recent appeal. On page 17 starting

with courts have statutory authority to dismiss a plaintiffs case

to page 19 it is nonetheless error, it is wrong on the law. City of

Sacramento v. Drew (198)207 Cal App. 3 1287, 1297-1298.)

Sherrer copied verbatim from the recent Opinion in Appeal

B263378 without attribution to the sources. This is unacceptable

and he should be sanctioned for this. Gary Lee Sherrer has

copied, plagiarized a published Opinion, for the second time,

without attribution to the record.

23. Page 19, second paragraph, the trial court sua sponte dismissal

was not preceded nor accompanied by a motion or an order to

show cause. See Sherrers briefs opposing an OSC and a Motion

for Terminating Sanctions. This is untrue. See ROA of Case

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 26 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

RG15796301. There was a pending motion filed by Quarle for

Terminating Sanctions and an Order to Show Cause.

24. Page 20: from the trial courts minute order, the trial court did

not state any rationale for ordering dismissal of the instant

action. This is disputed, for example see the same minutes where

Judge Spain states the court is also extremely dubious that

Keegans fraudulent-transfer acton has any merit given the facts

that have been revealed. the SAC admits that the property at

issue was sold to third parties, fails to allege that those third

parties were anything but bona fide purchasers for reasonable

value and fails to allege that Kaner retains any ownership of the

allegedly fraudulently transferred property or any of the proceeds

of the its sale (as opposed to the alleged remuneration Quarle

paid him after the sale). (Citing the 1/26/17 minute order) . Judge

Spain did not think Keegans SAC was viable.

The above 26 examples or statements are just some of

the statements made by Keegan or Sherrer without citation to the

record. However they are all important as they represent the

underpinnings of Appellants argument.

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 27 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Further, Respondent counts multiple occasions where

Keegan makes reference to the record by block page references.

This practice is disapproved of. A block reference to a large

volume of pages makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate which

facts a party believed supported its position. Additionally in this

case it would require Respondent to research the record and then

guess which portion of the block citation supported Keegans

position. Examples of this are found at:

1. Please see Operative Complaint which is contained in the CT

at pages CT001 through CT0012 on page 8.

2. attorney fees and costs under CCP Sections 1033.5, 680 et

seq. and 425.16 on pages 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16. Exactly

which code authorizes her claimed attorney fees?

3. please see CT pages CT0043 through CT0045 these emails

are not part of the superior court record.

4. Keegans RJN fails to include a copy of Quarles Responses to

RFAs

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 28 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

5. Page 12, Summary of Significant Facts please see Clerks

transcript pages CT0010 through CT0030 .

KEEGANS entire AOB refers to assertions that were never

raised in the trial court. Sherrers purported oral objections to

the Ruling of 1/26/17 were not articulated to Judge Spain.

KEEGAN contends that trial courts order dismissing the second

amended complaint with prejudice is void for lack of notice.

However Keegans attorney attended the hearing of 1/26/17 and

substantial evidence supports the trial courts determination that

the 2AC was meritless. Keegan cites several cases, but the cases

are distinguishable. Santa Fe Internat. Corp In Lovato v. (1984)

an appellate court found a default judgment void for lack of notice

because notices had been mailed only to a suspended attorney

who no longer represented the party. In Reid v. Balter (1993) a

sanction of dismissal for not attending a status conference was

overturned because the only notice the trial court provided was a

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 29 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

warning of possible removal from the trial courts civil active

list.

Keegan cites inapposite cases for the proposition that cases

should be decided on the merits: She cites Shamblin v. Brattain

and Waite v. Southern Pacific Co. But here appellant was aware

of the twice- continued hearing, Sherrer attended the hearing.

Sherrer did not seek to immediately file an ex-parte motion to set

aside the ruling or a proposed third amended complaint. Keegan

never asked the trial court to grant relief from the dismissal with

prejudice. Keegan did nothing until she filed this appeal. There is

no CCP 473 Declaration citing inadvertence, surprise or

mistake. Conduct involving professional negligence, such as

failure to timely object or to property advance an argument are

not excusable. Courts do not act as guardians for incompetent

parties who are grossly careless as to their own affairs. (citing

Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 CalApp.4th 1401.) The court

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 30 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

did not abuse its discretion because Keegan never requested any

relief.

OBJECTION TO APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR


JUDICIAL NOTICE
Keegans RJN is procedurally defective and the reviewing

court should properly decline to take judicial notice under

Evidence Code sections 452 of a matter which should have been

presented to the trial court for its consideration in the first

instance. The RJN is defective for the following reasons:

1. The RJN was not filed as a separate document.

2. It fails to included a copy of the three items: a) Quarles

responses to RFAs; b) the 10/22/10 Recoded Deed from Quarle to

Kaner and c) the Recorded Notarized POA from Kaner to Quarle

of 8/31/12. This POA was part of the Recorded Noted and DOT of

8/31/12.

CONCLUSION

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 31 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

Citing Renda v. Nevarez Keegan is not entitled to a

second duplicative judgment against Quarle. A well-

established principle is that a plaintiff is entitled to only a

single recovery for a distinct harm suffered and double or

duplicative recovery for the same harm is prohibited.

Quarles successful 12/8/16 MJOP was based on Renda v.

Nevarez. Renda argued he was entitled to a second

personal judgment against Nevarez for $450,000 because

the UFTA expressly authorizes entry of a money judgment

against the person for whose benefit the transfer was

made. (Section 3439.08, sued. (b)(1). The 4DCA

disagreed. See Travaglione v. Billings (1993) 4 Cal 4th

1150.

Withhout either striking the brief or requiring

Appellant to revise or replace it with a brief with proper

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 32 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

citations to the record, the Court, as well as Respondent,

are saddled with all the extra work to sort through

Keegans arguments and claims to see if they are in fact

supported by the record. Therefore Quarle requests that

the District Court of Appeal either strike the brief or

alternatively return the brief for revision with appropriate

citations to the record and removal of Appellants

misleading citations to the record.

Dated: August 6, 2017

BY: MARCIA QUARLE /S/

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 33 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Sarah L. Kaner, declare that:
I am at least 18 years of age and not a party to the
above-entitled action. My address is 676 Alma in Oakland,
California 94612. I am employed in Alameda County.

I served the foregoing Motion To Strike or Direct


Correction of Non Conforming Opening Brief on August 6,
2017 and served Gary Lee Sherrer, via email
sherrerlaw@aol.com" and I mailed a copy of this
motion to:
The Honorable Judge Julia Spain
Department 19 of the Alameda County Superior Court via
U.S. Mail at 1221 Oak Street, Administration Building,
Third Floor, Oakland, California 94612.

____S_____
Sarah L. Kaner

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 34 A 150642


KEEGAN V. QUARLE A150642

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT


CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT
Pursuant to Rule 28.1(d)(1) of the California Rules of Court.

As required by the First District Court of Appeals, I certify


that the document contains 4887 words. This motion completes
with the rule which limits a motion or response to 5,200 words.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true


and correct.

Executed on August 6, 2017.

Marcia Quarle /s/


Respondent/Defendant

Keegan v. Quarle et. al. Page 35 A 150642